WAS  THE  APOSTLE  PETER 

EVER  AT  ROME? 


^-:«N  W--\\N-SSW^V  \\  CO 


REV.  MASON  GALLAGHER,D.  D. 


,  .  .^  ti-. 


iFnim  tl|p  ICtbrarg  of 

iSpqupatl|0li  bg  Ijtm  to 

\\\t  IGibrary  of 

Prtnr^ton  S^falngtral  g>pmt«ar^ 

BS  2515  .G34  1894 
Gallagher,  Mason 
Was  the  Apostle  Peter  ever 
at  Rome? 


WAS  THE  APOSTLE  PETER 

EVER  AT  ROME? 


A  CRITICAL  EXAMINATION  OF  THE  EVIDENCE  AND 

ARGUMENTS  PRESENTED  ON  BOTH  SIDES 

OF  THE  QUESTION 


MAf   13 


REV.  MASON  GALLAGHER,  D.  D., 

AUTHOR  OP  "  TRUE  CHURCHMANSHIP  VINDICATED,"    "  THE  DUTY  AND  NECESSITY 

OP  REVISION,"    "a  chapter  OP  UNWRITTEN   HISTORY," 

"  THE  TRUE  HISTORIC  EPISCOPATE." 


INTRODUCTION   BY 

REV.  JOHN  HALL,  D.  D., 

Pastor  Fifth  Avenue  Presbyterian  Church,  New  York. 


NEW  YORK 

PRINTED    BY   HUNT   &    EATON 

150  Fifth  Avenue 

1894 


"The  origin  and  prevalence  of  the  tradition  respecting  Peter's  supposed 
Episcopacy  at  Rome  are  among  the  curiosities  of  history,  and  well  worthy  of 
the  attention  of  the  critical  scholar." — Sawyer's  Organic  Christianity. 

"The  validity  of  the  Petrine  claims  directly  affects  every  matter,  and  every 
act  within  the  spiritual  domain  of  the  Papacy,  whether  belonging  to  the  sphere 
of  Faith  or  that  of  Discipline."— Littledale,  Peti'ine  Claims. 

"  The  question  of  the  supremacy  of  Rome  is  far  enough  from  being  out  of 
date.  It  is  one  of  the  chief  living,  burning  questions  of  our  time."— S.  H. 
Kellogg,  Christian  Tt'easury. 

"  There  is  no  evidence  from  Scripture  that  Peter  ever  was  in  Rome,  and  it  is 
far  from  being  probable  that  he  could  have  visited  heathen  Rome  and  have 
said  nothing  about  it  and  have  given  no  account  of  his  labors  there;  and  as  the 
evidence  of  Scripture  is  negatively  against  his  being  there  the  burden  of  proof 
is  upon  the  shoulders  of  those  who  assert  the  fncV—P?inceton  Heview,  iii.  253. 


Copyright,  1894, 
By  REV.  MASON  GALLAGHER,  D.  D. 


THE  MBRSHON  COMPANY  PRESS, 
RAHWAY,  N.  J. 


TRUSTEES  AND  FACULTY  OF  U.  S.  GRANT  UNIVERSITY, 
Athens  and  Chattanooga,  Tennessee. 

THIS  VOLUME  IS   INSCRIBED 

IN  TOKEN  OF  THEIR  COURTESY  IN  CONFERRING  THE  DEGREE, 

DOCTORIS  DIVINITATIS,   UPON  THE  AUTHOR, 

Chaplain  U.  S.  Grant  Post,  33~,  G.  A.  R., 

BROOKLYN,  N  Y. 


"  For  though  you  believe  all  the  Scripture,  yet  if  you  believe  not  that  Peter 
vyas  at  Rome,  you  know  who  will  tell  you,  you  had  as  good  believe  nothing."— 
Dr.  John  Lightfoot. 

"The  great  fact  of  the  Roman  Church  is  founded  solely  on  the  coming 
of  St.  Peter  to  Rome.  This  fact  would  be  absurd,  it  would  be  inexplicable, 
it  would  be  madness,  if  it  be  not  admitted  that  St.  Peter  came  to  Rome  to 
preach.  It  is  by  the  coming  of  St.  Peter,  that  the  Roman  Church  exists." 
—Father  Guidi,  Diss,  at  Rome,  1873. 

"  We  cannot  find  fault  with  a  Protestant,  when  relying  on  the  proofs  which 
the  oldest  Fathers,  Clement  of  Rome  and  Justin,  present,  he  holds  the  abode  of 
Peter  at  Rome,  and  all  connected  with  it,  for  a  tale  derived  from  the  Apocrypha." 
— Ellendorf,  Roman  Catholic  Professor,  Berlin. 

"  St.  Peter  the  good,  honest,  married  Apostle  of  Babylon,  and  the  East,  who 
left  as  the  last  legacy  to  his  followers,  not  to  make  themselves  'lords  over 
God's  heritage.'  ""—Edinburgh  Eeview,  July,  1893. 


INTRODUCTION. 


There  has  not  been  given  much  attention  by  the  good 
people  of  the  United  States  to  the  arguments  by  which 
the  doctrines  and  practices  of  the  Church  of  Rome  have 
been  assailed  from  the  one  side  and  defended  from  the 
other.  The  reasons  for  this  are  not  discreditable  to  a 
young  Nation  busily  engaged  in  shaping  its  own  life, 
and  satisfied  that  religious  convictions  are  a  man's  own 
affair  and  need  not  be  discussed  by  his  neighbors. 
There  is,  however,  an  increasing  attention  being  given 
to  History,  and  the  element  of  Religion  cannot  be  ruled 
out  of  historical  investigation. 

It  is,  moreover,  being  shown  to  thoughtful  students 
of  the  questions  of  the  day,  that  there  are  such  religious 
convictions  as  do  affect  others  than  those  who  hold  them, 
and  that  they  become  a  factor  in  social  and  political  life. 
We  rejoice  in  freedom,  but  we  must  scrutinize  forces, 
even  though  "  religious,"  that  appear  to  be  opposed  to 
accepted  ideas  of  human  freedom. 

Is  there  an  infallible,  visible,  divinely  appointed  Head 
of  the  Church — the  whole  and  only  Church  of  Christ  in 
the  world  ?  How  much  submission  is  due  to  such  a 
Head,  if  the  title  to  the  position  be  accepted  ?    Can  the 

vii 


viii  INTRODUCTION. 

title  be  sustained  ?  Did  the  Chief  Shepherd  and  Bishop 
of  souls  make  Peter  his  representative,  and  arrange  for 
an  unbroken  line  of  successors  to  the  Apostle  ?  More 
than  one  field  of  investigation  must  be  traversed  in  seek- 
ing for  replies.  We  must  go  into  the  exegesis  of  our 
Lord's  words  to  his  disciple.  They  who  read  in  these 
words  a  Primacy  conferred  have  to  face  another  ques- 
tion. Where  is  the  evidence  of  Divine  selection  of 
Rome  as  the  seat  of  this  Primacy  of  the  universal 
Church  ? 

It  is  easy  to  see  how,  in  the  absence  of  any  authorita- 
tive reply  to  this  question,  the  pleaders  for  such  an 
appointment  would  welcome  tradition  and  take  refer- 
ences to  the  Apostle's  stay  in  Rome  as  a  providential 
indication  of  the  Divine  Avill.  Even  the  language  of 
1  Peter  v.  13,  "  The  Church  that  is  at  Babylon  .  .  . 
saluteth  you,"  has  been  grasped  as  an  argument  for  the 
apostle's  sojourn  and  labors  in  the  Roman  capital, 
which,  they  say,  for  reasons  of  his  own,  he  describes  as 
"Babylon."  One  wonders  that  they  do  not  fear  to 
identify  it  with  the  "  Babylon  "  of  John,  the  character 
and  doom  of  which  are  so  vividly  presented  in  the 
Revelation. 

Is  there  real  historical  evidence  of  Peter's  being  in 
Rome,  in  any  such  sense  as  would  make  him  the  Founder 
and  Head  of  the  local  Church  ?  To  this  question  Dr. 
Gallagher  has  given  thought  and  careful  investigation. 
He  has  not  ignored  the  arguments  of  the  adherents  of 


INTRODUCTION.  ix 

the  Papal  view,  whether  in  traditions  or  Patristic  litera- 
ture. He  has  tried  to  set  their  true  value  upon  points 
of  supposed  evidence,  and  he  has  presented  calmly  and 
dispassionately  the  arguments  upon  the  other  side.  He 
has  shown,  by  the  admission  of  scholarly  Roman  Catho- 
lics, how  necessary  it  is  to  have  settled  beliefs  on  this 
matter,  if  one  is  to  be  a  sincere  and  loyal  subject  of  the 
Vatican. 

I  can  cordially  commend  the  book  to  careful  study. 
It  would  moderate  the  views  of  candid  Roman  Catholics 
regarding  Protestants,  to  have  shown  to  them  the 
uncertainty  to  our  minds  of  a  matter  which  they  have 
accepted  as  proved. 

They  would  not  blame  us  for  rejecting  their  theory 
when  the  Scripture  reference  to  it  will  not  stand  the  test 
of  exegesis,  and  when  the  historical  evidence  at  so  many 
points  suggests  the  verdict  "  not  proven." 

And  it  would  be  profitable  to  many  Protestants  to 
have  their  attention  called  to  the  alleged  basis  of  a 
spiritual  claim  of  authority  in  the  gravest  human  affairs — 
a  claim  which  is  becoming  a  real  thing  to  American  citi- 
zens. We  reject  the  claim,  for  cause.  We  should  be 
able  to  give  a  reason  for  this  objection.  Dr.  Gallagher's 
book,  it  is  to  be  hoped,  will  strengthen  intelligent 
Protestant  conviction,  and  give  encouragement  to  us  all 
to  speak  to  our  Roman  Catholic  fellow-citizens,  "  the 
truth  in  love." 

J,  Hall. 


PREFACE. 


Rome  rests  her  claim  on  Peter.  That  our  Lord  con- 
ferred an  especial  distinction  on  this  Apostle  must  be 
conceded. 

When  he  said  :  "  Thou  art  Peter,  and  on  this  Rock  I 
will  build  my  Church,  and  the  gates  of  hell  shall  not 
prevail  against  it.  And  I  will  give  unto  thee  the  keys 
of  the  kingdom  of  heaven  ;  and  whatsoever  tliou  shalt 
bind  on  earth  shall  be  bound  in  heaven  ;  and  whatsoever 
tliou  shalt  loose  on  earth,  shall  be  loosed  in  heaven," 
Matt.  xvi.  17,  18  ;  whatever  was  meant  by  these  words, 
the  honor  conferred  was  great. 

We  read  of  no  authority  given  him  to  exercise  over 
his  fellow  Apostles.  He  never  claimed  it.  His  fellows 
never  admitted  it.  Instead  of  regarding  it,  they  strove 
among  themselves  who  should  be  greatest.  The  wife  of 
Zebedee  desired  the  pre-eminence  for  her  sons. 

Peter  disowned  the  claim  when  he  styled  himself  "a 
fellow  elder."  He  discouraged  such  aspirations  when  he 
wrote  :  "  Be  clothed  with  humility,"  under  divine  guid- 
ance ;  he  gave  us  no  charge  to  build  on  a  dead  Peter  but 
to  "come  to  a  Living  Stone  and  be  built  up  a  spiritual 
house,"  to  offer  praise  to  God  through  Jesus  Christ. 

Paul  does  not  direct  the  Corinthians  to  build  on  Peter, 
who  had  followers  among  them,  but  declares  :  "  Other 
foundation  can  no  man  lay  than  that  is  laid,  which  is 

xi 


xii  PREFACE. 

Jesus  Christ."  This  he  says,  Divinely  inspired,  and  with 
all  who  give  due  honor  to  the  word  of  God,  it  will  be 
enough  to  condemn  a  Petrine  Foundation. 

But  Rome  interprets  the  charge  to  Peter  as  a  gift  of 
authority  over  the  universal  church  :  that  Peter  has 
been  made  the  foundation,  and  that,  apart  from  him,  no 
soul  can  be  built  up  in  the  faith  of  Christ  ;  can  obtain 
forgiveness  of  sin  ;  can  be  sanctified  by  the  Spirit,  and 
be  prepared  for  eternal  judgment  and  heavenly  glory. 

When  Rome  sends  her  heralds  to  this  land  who  come 
to  me  in  the  name  of  Peter  and  demand  my  adherence, 
and  complete  subjection,  I  reply  :  Granted  that  Peter 
had  such  power,  proved  by  Holy  Writ,  did  he  convey 
that  power  to  any  other  mortal,  and  was  it  to  be  handed 
down  from  generation  to  generation,  and  to  the  end  of 
time? 

If  this  is  proven,  I  ask  again,  what  connection  has  the 
city  of  Rome  with  Peter,  the  Apostle  of  the  Circum- 
cision, and  how  can  the  Bishop  of  Rome  derive  power 
from  tlie  dead  Peter  in  the  nineteenth  century,  over  any 
immortal  soul  in  this  distant  land  ?  By  what  right  can 
an  Italian  minister  of  Christ  interfere  with  the  spiritual 
liberty  of  an  intelligent  American,  who  has  the  Bible  in 
his  hand,  and  who  there  finds  that  some  of  the  doctrines 
and  usages  of  Rome  are  clearly  and  emphatically  con- 
demned, and  woes  denounced  against  those  who  present 
"  Another  Gospel  "  ? 

Examining  carefully  the  history  of  the  Church  of 
Rome,  and  all  the  evidence  she  presents  for  the  validity 
of  her  authority,  I  find  none  that  will  bear  an  impartial 
and  thorough  scrutiny.  I  find  no  ancient  writer  whose 
testimony  to  a  Roman  visit  would  be  received  in  any 
court  of  justice,  or  even  in  a  matter  which  concerned 


PREFACE.  xin 

worldly  property.     Shall  I  risk  my  immortal  soul  on  such 
an  uncertainty? 

I  find  that  the  vast  body  of  enlightened  scholarship, 
outside  the  Roman  communion,  decisively  reject  the 
claim  that  Peter  lived  and  labored  in  Rome,  and  con- 
sider the  statement  too  improbable  to  be  believed. 

I  find  that  learned  lawyers  have  thoroughly  investi- 
gated the  subject,  and  discover  no  evidence  that  is  reli- 
able, and  likewise  numerous  Roman  Catholic  authors 
assert  that  Peter  lived  and  labored  in  the  East. 

I  am  justified  therefore  in  rejecting  the  proposals  of 
Rome,  and  in  regarding  her  claim  to  authority,  through 
Peter,  as  baseless  and  vain,  and  that  all  who  have  bowed 
to  her  dictation  have  been  deceived  ;  and  considering  tiie 
influence  that  Church  has  exercised  on  nations  to  their 
spiritual  and  temporal  harm,  I  am  bound  to  make  known 
the  truth,  that  others  may  be  benefited  by  its  reception. 

All  evidence  that  Rome  has  presented  for  herPetrine 
claim  is  here  considered,  and  the  views  of  the  leading 
scholars  of  different  nations,  with  respect  to  the  life  and 
labors  of  the  Chief  of  the  Apostles,  together  with  other 
matters  cognate  to  the  subject. 

It  will  be  seen  that  in  this  inquiry  the  title  of  Saint 
has  been  omitted.  This  course  has  been  pursued,  inas- 
much as  there  is  no  precedent  or  authority  in  Scripture, 
nor  in  the  Primitive  Church  for  the  practice. 

The  Apostles  were  not  thus  styled  in  the  best  days  of 
Christianity,  nor  for  many  generations  after  their 
decease. 

As  for  later  and  uninspired  men,  the  practice  origi- 
nated in  a  degenerate  age,  and  cannot  be  defended  on 
reasonable  grounds. 

There  was  no  especial  merit  to  warrant  this  invidious 


XIV  PREFACE.    • 

appellation,  neither  have  those  who  received  the  dis- 
tinction excelled  the  Christians  of  our  own  time  in 
divine  knowledge,  or  in  the  possession  and  manifestation 
of  the  graces  of  the  Christian  character. 

By  the  Apostles  all  the  members  of  the  one  body  were 
equally  styled  "  saints." 

By  departing  from  the  Scriptural  statement  some  of 
the  brethren  have  been  unduly  magnified.  Distance  has 
lent  enchantment  to  the  view,  and  clothed  imperfect 
humanity  with  a  false  luster.  Evil  lias  naturally  fol- 
lowed. Those  styled  saints  have  been  honored  with  a 
species  of  worship.  Adoration^  instead  of  being  con- 
fined to  one  Supreme  Being,  has  been  offered  in  some 
measure  to  his  creatures,  and  the  displeasure  of  the 
Almighty  has  been  manifested,  in  the  withdrawal  of  his 
presence  and  favor  from  an  Institution  which  has  favored 
such  a  practice. 

Superstition  has  widely  extended,  the  truth  of  the 
Divine  "Word  has  been  corrupted  into  falsehood,  and 
spiritual  darkness  has  enveloped  both  priests  and 
people. 

Such  being  the  undeniable  results,  we  regard  the  use  of 
the  title  to  be  honored  more  in  the  breach,  than  in  the 
observance. 

That  the  Divine  Head  of  the  Church  may  bless  this 
investigation  to  the  extension  of  the  truth,  and  to  the 
removal  of  error,  and  thus  to  the  enlightenment  of  souls, 
is  the  author's  earnest  prayer. 

Brooklyn,  N.  Y.,  March  9, 1894. 


CONTENTS. 


CHAPTER  PAGE 

I.  Statement  of  the  Case, 1 

II.  Ignatius,            23 

III.  Clement  of  Rome, 33 

IV.  Fathers  of  the  Second  Century,        .        .  51 
V.  Testimony  of  the  Scripture,           ...  58 

VI.  Was  the  Babylon  of  Peter,  Rome  ?    .        .  68 

VII.  Origin  of  the  Story  :  Babylon  Meant  Rome,  .  74 

VIII.  Canon  Farrar  on  the  Question  of  Babylon,  81 

IX.  The  View  of  the  Orientalist  Lightfoot,      .  87 

X.  Dr.  G.  W.  Samson's  Argument,            .        .  93 

XI.  Rome  not  Babylon— Arguments  of  English 

Authors,            100 

XII.  Views  of  Continental  Writers,         .        .  107 

XIII.  Gavazzi's  Argujient, 117 

XIV.  The  Apostles  Peter  and  John,            .        .  133 
XV.  The  Second  Epistle  of  John,  To  Whom  Ad- 
dressed ?            131 

XVI.  Results  of  Inquiry  Thus  Far,      ...  141 

XVII.  Rome's  Appeal  to  Antiquity,           .        .        .  150 

XVIII.  Iren^us,            160 

XV 


XVI  CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER  PAGE 

XIX.  "The  Trophies"  of  Caius,        .        .                .174 

XX.  Tertullian  ajstd  Hippolytus,          .        .        .         184 

XXI.     Origen,  Clemens,  Cyprian 194 

XXII.    EusEBius,  206 

XXIII.  Professor  Ramsey's  Theory 218 

XXIV.  Recapitulation,        .....         234 
XXV.     Index, .        ,     247 


WAS  THE  APOSTLE 

PETER  EVER  AT  ROME ? 


CHAPTER  I. 
Statement  of  tbe  Case. 

"The  conclusion  Avliich  follows  from  the  fact  of  St. 
Peter  being  Bishop  of  Rome  is  important,  and  one  which 
every  Catholic  looks  upon  as  the  foundation  of  his 
faith." — Rev.  S.  B.  Smith's,  D.  D.,  Teachings  of 
THE  Holy  Catholic  Church.  Imprimatur:  Cardinals 
McCloskey  and  Gibbons  ;  Bishops  Gihnour,  Lynch,  and 
Elder.     1884. 

"  The  simplest  way  of  proving  that  the  Bishop  of 
Rome  is  not  the  successor  of  St.  Peter,  is  by  establishing 
as  a  stubborn  fact  that  St.  Peter  himself,  the  presumed 
source  of  the  Roman  claims,  never  was  Bishop  of  Rome  ; 
in  fact  that  he  never  was  in  the  Eternal  City." — Rev. 
Reuben  Parsons,  D.  D.,  Studies  in  Church  History. 
Imprimatur  :  Archbishop  Corrigan,  New  York.     1886. 


Considering  the  generally  accepted  opinion  on  this 
question,  it  is  remarkable  that  the  weight  of  modern 
argument  is  so  largely  with  those  who  deny  tliat  there 
is  satisfactory  or  respectable  evidence  that  the  Apostle 
Peter  ever  resided  in,  or  visited  the  Imperial  City  ;  evi- 
dence based  on  testimony  JudiciaUi/  scrutinized,  which 


2  WAS  PETER  EVER  AT  ROME? 

alone  is  wortliy  to  be  accepted  in  an  investigation  so 
important  with  respect  to  the  spiritual,  eternal  interests 
involved. 

For  if  Peter  went  to  Rome,  and  the  results  followed 
which  over  half  the  visible  Christian  Church  are  taught 
to  believe  as  an  essential  article  of  faith,  then  the  writer, 
and  all  who  with  him  reject  and  oppose  the  Roman 
Catholic  Church,  because  not  a  sound  and  ])ure  part  of 
the  kingdom  of  Christ,  are  thereby  doomed  to  eternal 
and  irretrievable  damnation  with  the  devil  and  liis 
angels. 

AVHAT    ROME    TEACHES. 

"If  anyone  should  deny  that  it  is  by  the  institution 
of  Christ,  the  Lord,  or  by  Divine  Right,  that  blessed 
Peter  should  liave  a  perpetual  line  of  successors  in  the 
primacy  over  the  Universal  Church,  or  that  the  Roman 
Pontiff  is  the  successor  of  blessed  Peter  in  the  Pri- 
macy, let  him  be  anathema  !  " — Decree  of  Vatican 
Council,  1870. 

"He  that  acknowledgeth  not  himself  to  be  under  the 
Bishop  of  Rome,  and  that  the  Bishop  of  Rome  is 
ordained  of  God  to  have  Primacy  over  all  the  world,  is 
a  heretic  and  cannot  be  saved,  nor  is  of  the  flock  of 
Christ." — Canon  Law  Ch.  of  Rome. 

Creed  of  Pope  Pius  IV.,  1564  :  "I  acknowledge 
the  Holy 'Catholic,  Apostolic,  Roman  Church,  for  the 
mother  and  mistress  of  all  Churches  ;  and  I  promise  true 
obedience  to  tlie  Bishop  of  Rome — successor  to  St. 
Peter,  Prince  of  the  Apostles,  and  Vicar  of  Jesus 
Christ.  I  do  at  this  present  freely  profess,  and  sincerely 
hold,  this  true  Catholic  faith,  without  which  no  one  can 
be  saved." 


THE  BURDEN  OF  PROOF.  3 

Catechismus  Romaxus,  ii.  vii.  xvii.  :  "  The  Roman 
Bisliop  .  .  .  occupying  as  he  does  the  cliair  of  St.  Peter, 
the  Prince  of  tlie  Apostles,  who  most  assuredly  himself 
occupied  it  till  tlie  time  of  his  death,  is,  in  it,  entitled  to 
the  iiighest  honors,  and  tlie  most  unbounded  jurisdiction, 
as  having  been  conferred  on  him,  not  by  the  decrees  of  any 
council  or  other  human  authority,  but  by  God  liimself." 

Decree  of  Boniface  VIII.,  ed.  Gregory  XII.,  1648: 
"Tliere  are  one  Body,  one  Head  of  the  one  and  sole 
Church,  viz.,  Christ  and  Christ's  Vicar,  Peter,  and  the 
successors  of  Peter.  .  .  Moreover  we  say,  determine, 
and  pronounce,  that  every  human  creature  is  subject  to 
the  Roman  Pontiff,  as  of  absolute  necessity  to  salvation." 

"After  the  death  of  St.  Peter,  tlie  Pope,  tlie  Bishop 
of  Rome,  has  always  been  taken  as  the  visible  head  of 
Christ's  Cliurch,  because  St.  Peter  established  his  See  at 
Rome  and  consecrated  it  with  his  blood." — Fam.Ex.Cath. 
Doctrine,  p.  iii,  1888.     Imprimatur  :  Cardinal  Gibbons. 

"Whoever  would  seek  for  salvation  must  adhere  to 
tliis  unity  ;  to  this  authority  of  St.  Peter  and  liis  suc- 
cessors."— Barras.,  Gen.  Hist.  Catholic  Church,  i.  24. 
Imprimatur :  Archbishops  McCloskey,  Spalding,  and 
Purcell. 

WHERE    THE    BURDEN    OF    rROOF    LIES. 

I  am  aware  that  the  Roman  claim  of  the  Primacy  of 
Peter  would  not  be  established  by  such  a  visit,  nor  by 
an  asserted  residence  of  twenty-five  years  in  that  city. 
I  insist,  also,  that  the  burden  of  proof  in  this  matter 
rests  with  those  who  make  the  eternal  salvation  of  man- 
kind depend  upon  their  belief  in  Peter,  as  livitig  and 
ruling  in  Rome,  supreme  Bishop  of  the  Christian  Church. 

For  it  is  absolutely  essential  for  the  confirmation  of 


4  WAS  PETER  EVER  AT  ROME? 

Roman  Catholic  claims  that  Peter  should  have  lived  in 
Rome  ;  should  have  been  Bishop  of  Rome  ;  sliould  have 
handed  down  plenary  apostolic  power  to  his  supposed 
successors.  The  whole  fabric  of  the  Roman  edifice 
needs  for  its  support,  the  production  of  well  authen- 
ticated and  indisputable  testimony  to  establish  Peter's 
visit  to  and  residence  in  Rome. 

Cardinal  Perrone,  one  of  the  most  learned  of  recent 
Roman  controversialists,  in  a  work  published  in  1864, 
says  :  "  None  but  an  apostate  Catholic  could  assert  that 
Peter  was  not  at  Rome  ;  for  the  reason  of  that  fact  is 
that  the  coming  of  St.  Peter  at  Rome,  and  the  seat  there 
established  by  him,  is  connected  with  an  article  of  our 
faith — that  is,  the  Primacy  of  Order  and  Jurisdiction 
belonijincr  of  Divine  Right  to  the  Roman  Pontiff.  Hence 
it  follows  that  he  cannot  be  a  Catholic  who  docs  not 
believe  the  coming,  the  episcopate,  and  the  death  of  St. 
Peter  in  Rome."  Cardinal  Bellarmine  acknowledges 
that  "  the  right  of  succession  of  the  Popes  is  founded 
on  this,  that  Peter  established  his  seat  in  Rome  b}'^ 
Divine  command,  and  occupied  it  till  his  death." 

It  overthrows  the  foundations  of  the  Church  of  Rome 
to  show,  that  there  is  no  clear  or  reliable  proof  that 
Peter  visited  Rome,  because  the  whole  fabric  of  Popery 
falls  without  the  establishment  of  this  assumption.  It 
is  as  essential  to  this  argument  as  the  brain  or  the  heart 
is  to  the  human  body. 

RECENT    CRITICAL    INVESTIGATIONS. 

This  whole  subject  has  received  of  late  years  a  more 
thorough  investigation  on  the  part  of  legal  minds 
accustomed  to  sift  evidence  ;  and  it  has  been  clearly 
shown  that  there  is  not  a  traditio7i  of  the  first  century 


ROMAN  CATHOLIC  ABMISfilONS.  5 

after  Peter''!<  death,  that  lie  iras  in  Home  ;  and  that 
there  is  no  assertion  of  the  fact  till  the  heginnlng  of  the 
third  century^  in  any  authentic  document. 

That  Holy  Scripture  makes  no  such  statement  is  con- 
cetled  by  all,  except  those  who  unwarrantably  assume 
that  the  Apostle,  when  he  writes  Babj^lon,  means  Rome, 
a  position  denied  by  many  eminent  Romanists,  and  by 
the  great  bulk  of  scholars  outside  that  Chui-ch,  of  which 
the  proof  will  be  presented. 

ROMAN    CATHOLIC    ADMISSIONS. 

A  marked  feature  of  this  controversy  is  the  character 
of  the  admissions  made  b}^  Roman  Catholic  writers. 
Simon,  in  his  "  Mission  and  Martyrdom  of  St.  Peter," 
refers  to  some  of  these  admissions.     Introd.,  p.  10  : 

"  Charles  \y\s  Moulin,  the  great  ecclesiastical  lawyer 
(a.  d.  1566),  whom  Father  Calmet  speaks  of  as  a  stead- 
fast Roman  Catholic,  and  than  whom  no  writer  ever 
enjoyed  a  higher  reputation  for  learning  and  intel- 
ligence, has  unequivocally  stated  it  as  his  opinion,  that 
there  never  was  even  a  vague  tradition  among  the 
ancients  about  Peter's  having  left  the  East,  and  that 
one  might  very  well  be  a  Roman  Catholic  without 
thinking  there  was." 

In  one  passage  he  writes  thus  :  "  Even  when,  after  the 
breaking  up  of  the  empire,  the  Bish&ps  of  Rome  began 
to  extend  their  authority  over  other  Churches,  they 
never  alleged  or  put  forward  this  story  of  Peter's  being 
at  Rome,  and  of  his  Primacy  devolving  in  succession 
upon  them,  which  they  would  not  have  omitted  to  do  if 
there  had  been  any  such  thing  to  put  forward  ;  a  clear 
proof  that  there  was  not ;  the  story,  I  suppose,  not  hav- 
ing yet  been  invented."     (Vol.  iv.  p.  460.) 


6  WAS  PETER  EVER  AT  ROME? 

Father  Leland,  the  celebrated  English  Antiquarian 
(a.  d.  1552),  and  Maesilius,  a  distinguished  Italian  jurist 
(a.  d.  1324),  both  of  whom  Calmet  also  mentions  as 
menibers  of  bis  Church,  were  equally  positive  on  this 
point.  Father  Caron,  an  Irish  Franciscan  of  the 
highest  eminence  (a.  d.  1666),  took  the  same  view  of 
the  matter  ;  as  also  did  Father  IIardouin,  a  French 
Jesuit  (a.  d.  1729),  likewise  in  very  high  repute  in 
Rome.  "  We  Roman  Catholics  hold,"  says  Father 
Hardouix,  "that  at  least  Peter's  head  was  brought  to 
Rome  after  his  crucifixion,  and  that  it  ought  to  be  duly 
worshiped  there  ;  but  that  the  Pope  is  Christ's  substi- 
tute and  Peter's  successor  is  clear  enough  withoixt  our 
being  bound  to  suj^pose  that  Peter  himself  ever  came  to 
Rome." 

De  Cormenin,  a  Roman  Catholic,  Hist.  Popes,  pp.  17, 
18,  remarks  :  "  We  are  compelled  to  admit  the  force 
of  reasoning  of  the  Protestants,  who  steadily  deny  the 
existence  of  the  journey  of  St.  Peter  to  Rome.  There 
is  no  proof  that  his  blood  was  shed  at,  Rome,  despite 
the  opinions  of  Baronius,  Fleurj',  and  others." 

Ellendorf,  Roman  Catholic  professor  at  Berlin, 
Bib.  Sac,  January,  1859,  105:  "Peter's  abode  at 
Rome  can  never  be  proved." 

Francis  Turretin,  Op.,  p.  144,  presents,  as  openly 
denying  the  visit  of  Peter  to  Rome,  John  Bapt.  Man- 
tuan,  M.  CfEsenas,  jMarsilius  Patavinus,  J.  Aventinus, 
Car.  Molina?us,  and  others,  all  Roman  Catholics. 

THE  verdict  of  PROTESTANT  SCHOLARSHIP. 
CONTINENTAL  AUTHORS. 

George  Stanley  Faber,  among  England's  ablest 
writers,  refers  to  one  who  was  regarded  as  the  greatest 


PBOTESTAXT  A  UTIIOlilTIES.  7 

scliolar  of  liis  age  :  "  Many  persons  will  incline  to  rest, 
either  partiall}^  or  wliolly,  in  the  strongly  expressed 
judgment  of  the  learned  Scaliger  :  '  As  for  the  com- 
ing of  Peter  to  Rome,  liis  Roman  episcopate  of  twenty 
years,  and  his  final  martyrdom  at  Rome,  no  man,  whose 
head  can  boast  a  grain  of  common  sense,  will  believe 
a  single  syllable.'" —Facts  and  Assertions,  etc.,  p.  58. 

IiT  a  treatise  on  the  Feigned  Departure  of  Peter, 
etc.,  Spaniieim  maintains  that  "  Peter  never  was  in 
Rome." 

Salmasius  asserts  that  "  there  is  no  better  evidence 
for  Peter  having  gone  thither,  than  for  the  preaching  of 
James  in  Spain,  or  of  Joseph  of  Arimathea  in  Britain  ; 
and  by  calculation  of  dates  it  is  proved,  with  the  utmost 
certainty,  "  that  the  Apostle  was  never  at  Rome."  (See 
Robins'  "  Evidence  of  Scripture  Against  the  Claims  of 
the  Roman  Church,"  p.  106.) 

F. TuRRETix,  Op.  iii.  148,  Am.  Ed,:  "  That  Peter  was 
at  Rome  is  doubtful  and  extremely  uncertain  ;  it  is  far 
more  certain  tliatbe  never  saw  Rome." 

Raxke  affirms  :  "  Historical  criticism  has  shown  that 
it  is  a  matter  of  doubt  whether  the  Apostle  ever  was  at 
Rome  at  all."  (Ref.  C,  ii.  ch.  3,  p.  472.) 

Yax  Oosterzee,  Christ.  Dogm.,  p.  702  :  "  Even  if 
we  allow  that  Peter  was  actually  at  Rome  (though  the 
Scriptures  do  not  actually  decide  it,  and  hardly  leave 
room  to  suppose  it),  nothing  is  thereby  determined  in 
favor  of  his  episcopate  over  that  chnrch." 

Lipsius,  a  great  German  critic,  asserts  :  "  The  Roman 
Peter  Legend  proves  itself  to  be  from  beginning  to 
end  a  fiction,  and  thus  our  critical  judgment  is  con- 
firmed. The  feet  of  Peter  Never  Trod  the  Streets  of 
7iO«<e."— Pres.  Quar.,  April,  1876. 


8  WAS  PETER  EVER  AT  ROME? 

Kurtz  siiys  :  "  It  is  by  no  means  clear  tliat  Peter 
ever  went  to  Rome." — Cli.  Hist.  i.  04. 

Quoting  one  of  the  most  eminent  of  C'hiircli  Histor- 
ians, Professor  Bledsoe,  himself  among  the  most 
profound  philosophers  of  the  century,  asks  :  "  Was  St. 
Peter  ever  at  Rome  at  all  ?  This  question  is  carefully 
discussed  by  Neander  in  his  Planting  and  Training  of 
the  Christian  Church  ;  and  after  candidly  weighing  the 
evidence  on  both  sides,  he  evidently  inclines  to  disbe- 
lieve the  tradition  respecting  St.  Peter's  visit  to  Rome, 
and  still  more  his  residence  there  as  bishop.  But  unless 
we  are  greatly  mistaken,  there  are  several  forcible,  if 
not  irresistible  considerations,  which  are  overlooked  by 
Neander,  and  which  negative  the  idea  that  St,  Peter  ever 
was  Bishop  of  Rome." — South.  Rev.,  July,  '72. 

VIEWS  OF  BRITISH  SCHOLARS. 

Of  the  Reformation  Avriters  we  have  Cranmer  and 
CovERDALE  asscrtiug,  "  It  is  not  certain  that  Peter  was 
ever  in  Rome." — Cranmer,  Wks.,  ii.  76. 

Bishop  Hooper  says  :  "  Whether  Peter  was  in  Rome 
at  all  is  still  a  disputed  question.  I  never  knew  a  man 
yet  able  to  prove  it." 

Bradford  argues  strongly  against  it.  Willet,  in  his 
"  Synopsis  Papismi,"  does  the  same. 

In  the  seventeenth  centuiy  we  have  the  Orientalist, 
LiGHTFOOT,  asserting  :  "  In  all  the  Scripture  you  cannot 
find  Peter  nearer  Rome  than  Joppa  ;  and  our  Protestant 
writers  have  made  it  plain  as  the  sun  at  noondav,  that 
he  never  was  there.'' — Wks.,  vii.  2. 

John  Owen  writes  :  "  As  to  what  is  recorded  in 
storv,  the  order  and  series  of  things,  with  the  discovery 
afforded   us  of  Peter's  course  and   j)lace  of    abode  in 


PliOTESTAXr  AUTHORITIES.  9 

Scripture,  do  prevail  with  me  to  think  steadfastly  he 
was  never  there." — Vol.  xi.v.  202, 

Bishop  Buix,  Wks.,  ii.  193  :  "All  this  while  the  cit}^ 
of  Rome  lay  in  darkness  ;  till  at  length,  in  the  reign 
of  Claudius,  as  Eusebius  relates  it,  St.  Peter  came  to 
Rome,  (and  certainly  then  he  came  if  ever,)  and  brought 
the  light  of  the  heavenly  doctrine  from  the  East,  in- 
to the  parts  of  the  western  world.  .  .  St.  Clement, 
Bishop  of  Rome  in  the  Apostolic  age,  speaking  of  the 
labors  of  St.  Peter  and  St.  Paul,  briefly  touches  on  the 
former,  but  dwells  on  the  praises  of  the  latter  {iiot  so 
much  as  mentioning  St.  Peter  coming  to  Rome).'''' 

"  Some  very  learned  men  have  observed  that  the 
above  tradition  of  St.  Peter's  voyage  to  Rome  was  first 
derived  from  Papias,  an  author  indeed  very  ancient, 
but  also  very  credulous,  and  of  a  mean  judgment." — 
Vind.  Ch.  of  Englantl,  p.  42. 

J.  H.  Browne,  "  Peter  the  Apostle  never  at  Rome," 
p.  45  :  "  Since  the  ancient  tradition  of  the  journey  of 
the  Apostle  Peter  to  Rome  in  the  reign  of  Claudius  is 
untrustworthy,  as  I  have  shown,  and  very  generally 
rejected  ;  and  since  the  same  Apostle's  going  to  Rome 
at  any  subsequent  time  rests  on  no  foundation  in  sacred 
or  ecclesiastical  history,  as  I  have  also  pointed  out  in 
the  foregoing  pages  ;  the  conclusion  of  Bishop  Bull,  as 
it  seems  to  me,  must  be  assented  to,  and  the  testimony 
accepted  which  he  considers  must  be  drawn  from  the 
silence  of  Clement  of  Rome,  that  the  Apostle  Peter  was 
never  in  that  city.'''' 

JoHX  Howe  writes  :  "All  their  learning,  wit,  and 
sophistry  will  never  answer  what  hath  been  written  to 
make  it  highly  probable  that  St.  Peter  Avas  never  at 
Rome,  much  less  that  he  sat  twenty-five  years  there. 


10  WAS  PETER  EVER  AT  ROME? 

It  must  therefore  be  a  strong  delusion  wliicli  makes 
them  build  so  mighty  a  fabric  on  so  infirm  and  weak  a 
foundation," — Wks.,  v.  524. 

Bower,  in  Hist.  Popes,  i.  5,  says  :  "From  what  has 
hitherto  been  said,  every  impartial  judge  must  conclude 
that  it  is  at  best  very  much  to  be  doubted  whether 
Peter  was  ever  at  Rome." 

Of  modern  writers  of  great  learning  we  have  Adam 
Clarke,  who  asserts  :  "  I  am  of  opinion  that  St.  Peter 
did  not  write  from  Rome — that  he  was  Jieither  Bishop 
of  Rome,  nor  martyred  at  Rome — in  a  word,  that  he 
never  was  at  Rome." 

Dr.  KiTTO  says  in  his  Encyclopaedia:  "There  is  no 
sufficient  reason  for  believing  that  Peter  was  ever  even 
so  much  as  within  the  walls  of  Rome." 

In  Dick's  Theology,  ii.  468,  we  read:  "  The  sum  of  all 
that  has  been  said  is,  that  we  have  no  evidence  that 
Peter  went  to  Rome  now,  or  at  any  other  time." 

Hill,  Divinitv,  p.  70,  remarks  :  "  When  you  ex- 
amine the  evidence  that  Peter  died  Bishop  of  Rome, 
you  will  find  it  extremely  doubtful  whether  he  ever  was 
in  that  city." 

Robert  Hall  writes:  "That  Peter  was  ever  at 
Rome  we  have  no  evidence  but  vague  and  uncertain 
traditions.  That  he  exercised  the  episcopal  function 
there  is  still  more  uncertain,  or  rather  extremel}^  improb- 
able."—Wks.,  iv.  254,  Eng.  Ed. 

Bishop  CoPLESTON,  in  Errors  of  Romanism,  sa^'s  :  "  It 
is  even  a  matter  of  serious  doubt  whether  Peter  was 
ever  at  Rome.  There  is  no  historical  evidence  of  the 
fact,  and  there  is  much  probability  against  it." 

Greenwood,  in  Catliedra  Petri,  writes  :  "It  maybe 
stated  generally  with  perfect  certainty  that  no  visit  of 


PROTESTANT  AUTHORTTIKS.  11 

tlie  Apostle  Peter  to  tlie  AVest  is  asserted,  in  direct  and 
positive  terms,  by  any  extant  Cliristian  writer  for  the 
first  three  centuries." 

Edgar,  Var.  Popery,  p.  68  :  "History  has  preserved 
a  profound  silence  on  the  subject  of  the  first  Roman 
bisliop  .  .  .  the  evidence  of  Peter\s  visit  to  that  city  is 
not  historical  but  traditional.  History  for  a  century 
after  the  alleged  event  presents  on  this  topic  an  univer- 
sal blank,  which  is  supplied  from  the  very  suspicious  tes- 
timony of  tradition.  A  single  hint  on  this  subject  is  not 
afforded  by  Peter  himself,  nor  by  his  inspired  com- 
panions." 

TiMPSON,  Ch.  Hist.  35,  remarks  :  "  We  have  no  satis- 
factory evidence  from  history  that  Peter  ever  was  at 
Rome,  much  less  bishop  of  that  cit3^" 

Powell  on  Succession,  119  :  "It  is  a  question  never 
yet  settled  whether  Peter  was  at  Rome." 

Alex.  Bishop,  Two  Babylons  :  "  That  Peter  the 
Apostle  was  ever  Bishop  of  Rome  has  been  proved  again 
and  again  an  arrant  fable.  That  he  ever  set  foot  in 
Rome  is  at  best  highly  doubtful." 

McGavin's  Protestant :  "  Tliat  Peter  Avas  Bishop  of 
Rome,  or  that  he  ever  saw  Rome,  remains  yet  to  be 
proved." 

Arrowsmith,  Geog.  Diet.  Script.  :  "  It  is  by  no  means 
certain  that  Peter  was  ever  at  Rome  at  all  (being  the 
Apostle  of  the  circumcision,  Gal.  ii.  9). 

Seelet,  Essa3's  on  Rom.,  182  :  "So  far  from  such 
being  the  case  (St.  Peter,  Bishop  of  Rome),  long  argu- 
ments have  been  constructed  to  show  that  St.  Peter 
never  was  at  Rome  at  all." 

J.  A.  Wylie,  "  The  Papacy,"  p.  233  :  "  If  ever 
Peter  did  visit  Rome,   of  which   there  exists  not  the 


12  TT-l.^  PETER  EVER  AT  ROMEf 

sliglitest  evidence,  his  stay  must  liave  been  sliort 
indeed." 

LiTTLEDALE,  in  Plain  Reasons,  saj^s  :  "  That  St. 
Peter  was  ever  at  Rome  at  all,  there  is  no  first-hand  or 
contemporaneous  testimoii}'^  to  the  opinion,  whether  in 
Scripture  or  elsewhere  ;  whence  it  is  clear  that  God 
has  not  considered  it  important  enough  to  be  certified 
for  us  as  being  a  matter  of  faith." 

Davidsox,  Intro.  N.  Test.,  i.  142  :  "  The  connection 
of  Peter  with  Rome,  though  it  appears  in  early  eccle- 
siastical literature,  rests  on  an  insecure  basis.  Distin- 
guished critics  reject  it,  not  without  reason." 

Kennard  afiirms,  Cont.  with  McLachlan,  49  :  "I 
boldly  and  advisedly  assert  that  there  is  no  evidence  to 
show  that  St.  Peter  ever  was  at  Rome." 

Bagby's  Trav.  in  East.  p.  702  :  "  I  do  not  believe  that 
Peter  was  ever  at  Rome  at  all  ;  at  any  rate  for  any 
length  of  time.  There  are  no  authentic  records  to  prove 
it,  though  the  Romanists  profess  to  show  the  spot  on 
which  he  was  put  to  death,  and  assert  that  he  was  cruci- 
fied, head  downward,  in  the  reign  of  Nero.  Peter  is 
never  once  named  as  having  been  at  Rome,  in  the  New 
Testament." 

Massey,  Secret.  Hist.  Rom.,  2  :  "The  Roman  Church, 
like  the  Roman  Empire,  rose  to  its  palmy  greatness  from 
the  poorest  and  most  obscure  origin.  The  researches  of 
the  historians  Milman,  Merivale,  Mosheim,  Giesler,  and 
Bunsen,  as  I  have  fully  shown  in  my  history  of  Rome, 
have  detected  as  '  transparent  fabrications,'  all  the 
legend,  by  which  Romish  Avriters  glorify  their  earl}'- 
Church.  They  expose  the  monstrous  absurdity  of  the 
Romish  claim  to  St.  Peter  as  its  founder  and  bishop. 
They  point  to  the  undeniable  fact  that  thei'e  is  not  the 


FliOTESTAXT  AUTHORITIES.  13 

slightest  allusion  in  the  Holy  Scriptures,  to  any  connec- 
tion between  that  Apostle  and  Rome.  .  .  Mihnan  also 
shows  from  that  curious  first  religious  romance,  the 
Clementina,  that  this  story  of  St.  Peter's  sojourn  at 
Rome  is  of  fabulous  origin." 

North  British  Review,  November,  1848,  p.  .  "  It  is 
jyossible  that  Peter  may  have  gone  to  Rome,  irti  reXei 
as  Origen  has  it,  but  there  is  not  the  very  remotest  reason 
for  such  a  supposition.''^ 

Blaikie  in  Bible  Plistory,  p.  418,  Avrites  :  "The  tra- 
dition that  Peter  went  to  Rome  in  the  reign  of  Nero, 
and  was  condemned  at  the  same  time  as  Paul,  is 
now  generally  abandoned  as  destitute  of  trustworthy 
authority." 

Encyc.  Britan,,  Article,  Popedom:  "It  is  main- 
tained, by  the  great  majority  of  Protestant  scholars, 
that  there  is  no  proof  that  Peter  was  ever  in  Rome 
at  all." 

AMERICAN    WRITERS. 

Smyth,  Apostolical  Succes.,  p.  233  :  "  We  have 
sought  for  Peter  at  Rome,  and  could  not  ascertain  that 
he  ever  was  at  Rome  at  all." 

C.  Hodge,  Syst.  Theol.,  i,  132  :  "It  is  very  doubtful 
whether  Peter  was  ever  at  Rome.  The  sphere  of  his 
labors  was  in  Parthia  and  the  East." 

Elliott  on  Romanism,  ii.  223  :  "There  is  no  evidence 
that  Peter  ever  was  at  Rome,  no  proof  that  he  ever 
wrote  from  Rome,  or  was  bishop  there." 

Bethune,  Lect.  Cat.,  ii.  350:  "It  is  doubted  by 
many  learned  investigators  that  Peter  ever  was  at  Rome 
at  all." 

Jacobus,  Com.  Acts,  xii.  17:  "There  is  no  j^roof 
that  Peter  went  to  Rome  now,  or  at  any  other  time." 


H  WAS  PETER  EVER  AT  ROME? 

Hurst,  Short.  Hist.  Early  Cli.,  p.  6  :  "There  is  no 
historic  proof  that  Peter  founded  the  Church  in  Rome, 
or  was  bishop  there." 

Stroxg,  Syst.  Theol.,  p.  507:  "There  is  no  con- 
clusive evidence  tluit  Peter  ever  was  at  Rome." 

Dr.  N.  Murray  (Kirwan),  Let.  to  Bp.  Huglies,  57. 
"As  to  Peter  being  Bishop  of  Rome,  or  being  even  at 
Rome,  the  Scriptures  are  silent.  The  amount  of  your 
testimony  resolves  itself  into  the  truth  or  falsehood  of 
a  prattling  Papias,  who  told  Irenseus  that  somebody 
told  him,  that  Peter  was  Pope  of  Rome." 

H.  C.  Yedder,  Bapt.  Quar.  Rev.,  xi.  509  :  "  It  can- 
not be  proved  that  Peter  ever  was  at  Rome,  much  less 
that  be  was  a  bishop  of  the  Church  of  Rome." 

R.  E.  Thompson,  Mag.  Christ.  Liter.,  August,  1892  : 
"Peter  was  probably  never  at  Rome." 

W.  M.  Taylor,  Life  of  Peter,  343  :  "  It  is  not  by  any 
means  certain  that  Peter  ever  was  at  Rome,  and  facts 
may  yet  be  brought  to  light  to  make  it  certain  that  he 
never  was." 

Lansing,  Rome  and  the  Rep.,  205  :  "  From  the  best 
evidence  that  I  can  get  on  both  sides,  Peter  was  never 
in  Rome,  and  that  has  been  the  oj^inion  of  manj^  of 
the  most  learned  theologians  and  historians." 

Emerton,  Intro,  Mid.  Ages.,  102  :  "In  later  times  the 
Roman  Church  claimed  that  it  had  been  founded  by 
the  Apostle  Peter,  but  that  cannot  be  proved." 

Shimeall,  End  of  Prelacj^,  p.  289  :  "  We  denj'-  that 
Peter  was  ever  at  Rome.  The  New  Testament  Scrip- 
tures are,  of  course,  entirely  silent  on  the  subject.  .  . 
From  a.  d.  49  or  50,  for  all  further  information  respect- 
ing him,  we  are  wholly  dependent  on  the  bewildering 
uncertainty  of  early  tradition." 


PROTEST AXT  AUTHORITIES.  15 

New  Exglandek,  October,  18V2:  "Rome  was  the  only 
city  in  tlie  West  wliere  an  Apostle,  Paul,  had  labored  ; 
though  it  was  claimed  that  Peter  had  been  there,  against 
all  the  intimations  and  teachings  of  Scripture." 

Princeton  Rev.,  iii.  252:  "There  is  no  good  evi- 
dence that  Peter  was  ever  in  Rome.  It  certainly  docs 
not  appear  from  Scripture  ;  indeed  there  is  nothing  in 
Scripture  which  would  lead  to  such  a  supposition." 

T.  y.  Moore,  South.  Meth.  Rev.,  Januarj^,  1856:  "The 
fact  that  we  i)ress  is  that  there  is  not  a  particle  of  evi- 
dence for  a  hundred  years  after  the  death  of  Peter  that 
it  was  ever  dreamed  that  he  had  been  in  Rome  ;  that  it  is 
not  until  a.  d.  176  that  a  doubtful  testimony  occurs  ;  and 
that  it  is  not  until  the  first  quarter  of  the  third  century 
that  we  find  clear  evidence  that  this  fact  was  believed, 
and  then  only  in  connection  with  many  admitted  false- 
hoods. There  is  absolutely  no  clear  satisfactory  proof 
that  Peter  ever  was  at  Rome  :  the  probability  clearly 
is  that  he  died  at  Babylon." 

Bacon,  Lives  of  Apos.,  p.  253-257:  "In  justification 
of  the  certainty  with  which  sentence  is  pronounced 
against  the  whole  story  of  Peter's  ever  liaving  gone  to 
Rome,  it  is  only  necessary  to  refer  to  the  decisive  argu- 
ment on  pp.  228-233,  in  which  the  whole  arraj^  of 
ancient  evidence  is  given  by  Dr.  IMurdock,  .  .  All 
those  writers  who  preteiul  to  particularize  the  mode  of 
liis  departure,  connect  it  also  with  the  utterly  impos- 
sible fiction  of  his  residence  at  Rome." 

DowLiNG,  on  Romanism  :  "There  is  no  mention  in 
the  New  Testament  that  Peter  ever  was  at  Rome,  and 
hence  Scaliger,  Salmasius,  Spanheim,  and  Adam  Clarke 
and  many  otliers  have  denied  that  he  ever  visited  that 
city." 


10  WAS  rETER  EVER  AT  HOME? 

SxoDGRAss,  Apos,  Succ.  221  :  "  TLe  challenge  has 
often  been  given  to  the  Papacy  and  to  all  others  who 
claim  to  be  successors  of  Peter  as  Bishop  of  Rome,  to 
produce  any  proof  that  he  ever  was  at  Rome  at  all,  and 
they  have  never  done  it.  The  ijrobability  is  that  lie 
never  was." 

N.  L,  Rice,  Rom.  not  Christianity,  p.  139  :  "It  is 
sufficient  to  state  the  fact,  that  the  most  learned  men 
who  are  not  Papists  are  unable  to  find  any  trace  of  the 
doctrine  of  the  Pope's  supremacy  in  the  Primitive  ages 
of  Christianity,  that  they  even  doubt  Avhether  Peter 
was  ever  at  Rome." 

NouRSE,  Prot.  Rev.,  July,  1846,  p.  220  :  "  The  truth 
is  this,  the  Scrijjture  is  Avholly  silent  in  regard  to  any 
visit  of  Peter  to  Rome,  either  for  one  jjurpose  of 
another.  And  this  is  strong,  nay,  conclusive  evidence 
against  such  a  visit.  For  so  remarkable  a  fact  (had  it 
existed)  as  the  piince  of  the  Apostles  going  to  Rome  to 
exercise  his  supremacy  there,  could  not  have  been  left 
unrecorded.  There  is,  therefore,  no  evidence  in  Scrip- 
ture that  Peter  ever  exercised  his  office  in  Rome." 

Sawyer's  Organ.  Christianity,  p.  49:  "The  tradition 
of  Peter's  death  at  Rome  is  a  natural  accompaniment  of 
the  fiction  that  he  lived  and  labored  there  ;  and  has 
no  solid  foundation.  The  manifest  error  of  supposing 
that  he  had  lived  there  sufficiently  accounts  for  the 
tradition  that  he  died  there.  There  is  no  evidence  in 
favor  of  either  ;  but  the  contrary.  .  .  The  origin  and 
prevalence  of  the  tradition  respecting  Peter's  sui^posed 
episcopacy  at  Rome  are  among  the  curiosities  of  his- 
tory, and  well  worthy  the  attention  of  the  critical 
scholar." 

Professor  Clement  M.  Butler,  formerly  a  chaplain 


.1   IHSTOUIC  PARALLEL.  IV 

in  Rome,  remarks  in  his  work,  St.  Paul  in  Rome, 
p.  260  :  "  We  find  no  contemporaneous  witness  saying 
that  St.  Peter  was  at  Rome,  nor  even  saying  that  it  teas 
said.  We  find  no  witness  near  that  jyeriod  making  that 
assertion.  It  is  not  until  several  generations  after  his 
death  that  it  began  to  be  said  that  St.  Peter  had  lived 
and  been  crucified  at  Rome.  After  it  once  began  to  be 
said,  it  matters  not  how  many  may  have  repeated  the 
saying  on  the  authority  of  those  who  went  before. 
They  do  not  add  any  strength  to  the  testimony.  The 
chain  of  testimony  fails  for  the  want  of  connecting 
links  between  the  first  witnesses  and  the  facts  alleged. 
Nothing  is  accomplished  by  adding  a  thousand  links 
to  the  other  end  of  the  chain.  .  .  We  see  from  an 
examination  of  those  references  which  we  have  consid- 
ered, of  how  little  weight,  in  the  way  of  historical  testi- 
mony, would  be  the  statements  of  Eusebius  and  Jerome, 
and  twenty  or  thirty  other  fathers  who  lived  from  a 
century  and  a  half  to  four  centuries  after  Peter,  as  to 
the  question  of  his  residence,  his  life  and  death  at  Rome, 
They  could  but  repeat  the  statements  of  those  who  had 
gone  before.  They  could  but  assert  over  and  over  that 
such  and  such  were  traditions  of  the  Church.  How 
much  credit  would  be  due  to  traditions  thus  created  we 
have  already  seen.  For  it  would  not  be  difiicult  to  show 
that  whatever  weight  niay  be  due  to  that  wliicli  may  be 
called  traditions,  the  alleged  statements  with  regard  to 
St.  Peter  are  not  in  fact  entitled  to  that  name." 

A   HISTORIC  PARALLEL. 

I  would  not  extend  this  article,  but  having  all  the 
Greek  and  Latin  passages  before  me  ever  alleged  in  tes- 
timony of  St.  Peter's  having  left  the  East,  thirty-seven 


18  WAS  PETER  EVER  AT  ROME? 

in  number,  I  ain  prepared  to  show  that  all,  combined,  do 
not  present  satisfactory  or  decisive  proof  that  this 
Apostle  ever  visited  Rome. 

Indeed,  the  case  resembles  that  of  the  story  of  the 
female  Pope  Joan,  Avhich,  although  accepted  by  one 
Pope  and  150  Romish  authors,  and  sustained  by  monu- 
ments prior  to  a.  d.  1600,  is  yet  rejected  by  numerous 
Protestant  writers.  It  requires  no  more  credulity  to 
believe  the  one  than  the  other.  There  is  about  as  much 
certainty  that  the  one  was  Pope,  as  that  the  other  ever 
visited  Rome.  It  is.  equally  idle  to  base  any  matter  of 
importance,  any  scheme  of  doctrine,  on  the  supposition 
that  either  event  ever  transpired.  The  errors  and  delu- 
sions of  the  Papal  scheme  are  built,  like  the  story  of 
Peter's  Roman  visit,  on  traditions  suited  to  superstitious 
minds,  not  on  reason  or  fair  argument,  which  will  abide 
the  test  of  sound  criticism  and  candid  and  thorough 
examination. 

Bishop  Jewel,  than  whom  there  is  no  higher  authority 
on  such  questions,  in  his  controversy  with  Harding, 
states  that  "  the  fable  was  raised  at  Rome,  and  thence 
only,  and  from  no  place  else,  was  jiublished  abroad  to 
the  world."  Then  presenting  the  names  of  nineteen 
Roman  Catholic  authors,  who  affirm  the  truth  of  the 
story,  he  writes  :  "of  these  some  lived  four  hundred, 
some  five  hundred  j'ears  ago,  and  have  ever  been  counted 
worthy  of  some  authority  ;  notAvithstanding,  for  your 
dame  Joan's  sake,  n'ou,  M.  Harding,  begin  now  to  clip 
their  credit.  Howbeit,  whatsoever  they  were,  certain  it 
is  they  were  not  Lutherans.  All  these,  with  one  consent 
agree  together,  that  dame  Joan  was  Pope  of  Rome." — 
Defense,  p.  352. 

Dr.  George  Peck,  Meth.  Quar.  Rev.,  January,  1845, 


A  HISTORIC  PARALLEL.  19 

p.l52,  writes:  "  Here  is  a  strong  arraj'-of  Roman  Catholic 
authorities  in  favor  of.  the  fact  of  a  female  Pope.  We 
do  not  pretend  to  say  that  the  evidence  is  conclusive, 
indeed  we  doubt  whether  it  is  sufficiently  sustained, 
Blondel  and  Bower,  two  great  Protestant  writers, 
have  investigated  the  matter  more  fully  than  others, 
and  come  to  the  conclusion  that  the  story  is  fabulous. 
Their  conclusions  are  based  upon  the  want  of  con- 
temporaneous history,  the  first  notice  taken  of  it  being 
by  an  author  who  lived  some  two  hundred  years  after 
the  event  is  said  to  have  transpired, 

*'  Bower,  however,  says  what  no  one  denies,  that  *  the 
female  Pope  owes  her  existence  and  her  promotion  to 
the  Roman  Catholics  themselves  ;  for  by  them  the  fable 
was  invented,  was  published  to  the  world  by  the  priests 
and  monks  before  the  Reformation,  and  was  credited 
upon  their  authority,  even  by  those  who  were  most 
zealously  attached  to  the  Hoi  v  See,  and  among  the  rest 
by  St.  Antoninus,  Archbishop  of  Florence,  nor  did  they 
begin  to  confute  it  till  Protestants  reproached  them  for 
it,  as  reflecting  great  dishonor  upon  the  See  of  St.  Peter." 

We  simpl}^  ask  Roman  Catholics  and  others  to  deal 
as  candidly  and  intelligently  with  this  Peter-Roman 
question, as  Blondel  and  Bower  have  with  the  Joan- 
Roman  story.  We  have  no  question  as  to  what  will  be 
the  result  of  this  investigation. 

Bishop  Coxe  pithily  remarks  :  "  If  you  ever  find  a 
Jesuit  disposed  to  be  impudent,  there  is  one  way  to 
silence  him  which  seldom  fails  of  success.  Remind  him 
of  the  great  cloud  of  Romish  witnesses  who  have  be- 
lieved in  Pope  Joan  ;  and  challenge  him  to  produce  a 
tenth  part  of  such  evidence  as  confirms  her  historic  char- 
acter, in  behalf  of  his  fable  about  St.  Peter's  residence 


20  WAS  PETER  EVER  AT  ROME? 

and  Pontificate  in  Rome." — N.  Y.  Observer,  December 
12,  1872. 

THE    SOCIETY    OF   JESUS. 

With  regard  to  the  so-called  "Society  of  Jesus,"  the 
writer  feels  full}^  justified  in  using  plain  language.  As 
an  American  citizen,  and  a  friend  of  trutli  and  riglit,  he  is 
irreconcilabl}^  opposed  to  an  organized  system  of  double- 
dealing  and  deceit.  He  distinguishes  between  this  irre- 
formable  and  unchangeable  bod}',  morally  isolated  from 
mankind,  and  the  great  mass  of  honest  Christian  men 
and  women  in  the  Church  of  Rome,  in  this  and  other 
lands.  He  full}^  adopts  the  judicious  language  of  a 
learned  and  godlj'^  scholar.  Professor  McDonald  of 
Princeton,  who  in  his  Life  and  ^Yritings  of  St.  John,  p. 
220,  says  :  "  We  shall  now  have  occasion  to  sjieak  of 
Rome,  as  it  is,  or  has  long  been,  since  the  fall  of  the 
empire,  but  we  mean  Rome,  strictly,  Papal  Rome,  Jesuit 
Rome,  and  not  that  great  venerable  Body  called  the 
Catholic  Church,  as  it  exists  in  Europe,  on  which  this 
Papal  power  has  been  sitting  like  a  close  and  stifling- 
incubus. 

*'  Tliis  is  a  distinction  that  ought  ever  to  be  made,  as 
enabling  us,  on  the  one  hand  to  preserve  charity,  and 
on  the  other  to  maintain  the  true  interpretation  of  those 
solemn  prophecies  which  point  to  the  terrible  evil  that 
was  to  be  developed  in  the  history  of  the  Christian 
Church.  It  is  thus  only  Ave  can  preserve  a  feeling  of 
brotherhood  to  our  fellow  Christians,  and  love  them  for 
the  saintliness  often  exhibited  in  their  characters.  But 
with  Jesuit  Rome,  the  Rome  of  Hildebrand  and  Borgia, 
there  can  be  no  communion.  She  herself  utterly  repels 
it,  and  her  ban  is  to  be  preferred  to  her  embrace." 

The  simple  fact  that  every  Roman  Catholic  govern- 


THE  JESUITS.  21 

inent  has  publicly  expelled  the  Jesuits,  will  justify   us 
with  every  reasonable  member  of  that  Church. 

The  order  was  driven  out  of  Portugal  in  1759  ;  from 
France,  Spain,  and  Naples,  1767.  In  1773  Pope 
Clement  XIV.,  for  meddling  in  politics,  quarreling  with 
other  religious  orders,  conforming  to  heathen  usages  in 
the  East,  raising  disturbances  which  brought  persecu- 
tion on  the  Church,  required  the  order,  for  the  peace 
of  the  Church,  to  be  suppressed,  extinguished,  abolished, 
and  abrogated  forever,  with  everything  pertaining  to 
it  ;  all  the  property  to  be  confiscated,  and  the  General 
to  be  confined  in  prison  till  his  death. 

The  Jesuits  reappeared  in  France  in  1814,  and  were 
again  expelled  in  1880  ;  again  expelled  from  Spain 
in  1820  and  1835  ;  from  Portugal  in  1834  ;  from  Russia 
in  1819  and  1830  ;  from  Holland  in  1816  ;  Switzerland 
in  1867  ;  Germany  in  1872. 

It  was  re-established  in  Rome  by  Pius  IX.  in  1849. 
It  is  swarming  extensively  in  our  own  land. 
.  Monseigneur  Depkadt,  Roman  Archbishop  of  Malines, 
writes:  "So  atrocious,  extensive,  and  continual  were 
their  crimes,  that  they  were  expelled  either  partially  or 
generall}^  from  all  the  different  countries  of  Europe  at 
various  intervals,  prior  to  the  abolition  of  the  order  in 
1773,  thirty-nine  times — a  fact  unparalleled  in  the  his- 
tory of  anybody  in  the  world." — Christ.Treas}-.,  vii.  510. 

The  rejoinder  to  the  statements  previously  presented 
that  Protestants  of  eminent  reputation,  like  Pearson, 
Grotius,  Drs.  Lardner,  Macnight,  "Whitby,  and  many 
others,  have  accepted  the  tradition  of  Peter's  visit 
to  Rome,  is  conclusively  met  by  its  utter  rejection  by 
numerous  writers  of  equal  learning  and  standing,  as 
has  been  seen,  and  will  be  more  fully  shown. 


22  WAS  PETER  EVER  AT  ROME? 

Mere  unautbeiiticated  traditions,  and  unsustained 
assertions,  are  not  conclusive  in  this  inquiry. 

A  claim  which  involves  consequences  so  momentous 
as  tlie  salvation  of  the  human  soul,  demands  of  neces- 
sity, proof  clear,  positive,  impregnable — in  fact,  absolute 
demonstration.  A  Divine  mandate  is  imperatively  re- 
quired, else  the  doctrine  has  no  claim  whatever  on  the 
conscience  of  man.  All  anathemas  and  excommunica- 
tions based  upon  it  have  been  utterly  valueless  in  the 
court  of  Heaven,  and  such  maledictions  have  been  visited 
upon  those  who  have  proclaimed  them. 


CHAPTER   II. 
1Fgnatiu6. 

It  may  be  asked,  AVliy  discuss  a  question  of  this 
nature  at  this  time?  Are  not  the  minds  of  Roman 
Catholics  inaccessible  to  all  argument  against  the 
accepted  doctrines  of  their  Church?  Is  it  not  an  estab- 
lished principle  of  the  Paj^al  Communion,  that  to  doubt 
one  dogma  of  their  creed  is  damnation?  Is  it  not,  there- 
fore, a  waste  of  time,  labor,  and  thought  to  prove  that 
what  is  distinctively  Roman  is  neither  Catholic,  reason- 
able, nor  revealed?  To  the  first  inquiry  we  answer, Yes, 
in  most  cases.  The  adoption  of  the  principle  involved 
in  the  second  question,  necessarily  produces  this  result. 

It  is,  however,  a  cheering  fact  that  in  our  land  of 
religious  libertj',  universal  education,  and  political  inde- 
pendence, there  is  an  advancing  freedom  of  thought 
among  the  laity  of  the  Church  of  Rome.  It  is  encourag- 
ing to  witness  the  formation  of  such  societies  as  the 
Columbian  Reading  Union,  the  Catholic  Summer 
School,  and  the  recent  meeting  of  the  Roman  Catholic 
Congress.  Vast  results  for  good  may  be  anticipated 
in  the  line  of  emancipation  of  the  lay  Roman  Catholic 
mind. 

It  is  in  the  hope  of  reaching  this  class  that  the  argu- 
ment which  vitally  concerns  the  foundation  of  the  Roman 
Scheme,  as  to  the  fact  of  the  Apostle  Peter's  visit  to 
Rome,  is  here  presented. 

The  fact  that  the  minds  of  a  number  of  priests  have 

33 


24  WAS  PETER  EVER  AT  ROME? 

recently  been  opened  to  the  full  divine  ligijt  of  Holy 
Scripture,  is  a  strong  stimulus  and  encouragement  to 
efforts  in  tins  direction. 

The  establishment  of  the  fact  that  there  is  no  satis- 
factory proof  on  record  that  the  Apostle  Peter  ever  saw 
the  city  of  Rome,  while  at  the  same  time  the  silence  of 
Scripture  renders  the  supposition  highly  improbable, 
may  lead  some  Roman  Catholic  minds  to  doubt  the  truth 
of  the  System  which  is  built  on  the  doctrine,  that  Peter 
was  in  Rome ;  was  a  Bishop  of  Rome ;  and  handed  down 
to  succeeding  Bishops  of  Rome  plenary  apostolic  author- 
ity and  supreme  spiritual  domination. 

A  general  survey  of  the  subject  Avas  pi'esented  in  the 
previous  chapter,  where  was  briefly  mentioned  the  argu- 
ments of  learned  writers  against  the  fact  of  the  journey 
to  Rome  by  Peter,  and  the  admission  of  Roman  Catholics 
that  proof  of  the  same  is  wanting.  The  language  of  all 
early  writers,  whose  works  have  reached  us,  appealed  to 
to  substantiate  the  claim  that  Peter  visited  Rome,  will 
be  examined  in  detail.  Alleged  testimonies  Avhich 
Roman  Catholic  writers  have  confessed  to  be  forgeries 
will  be  briefly  disposed  of. 

FORGED    testimony:    LINUS    AND    ANACLETUS. 

Of  this  character  are  Linus,  a.  d.  VO,  and  Anacletus, 
A.  D,  91^  Bishops  of  Rome,  whom  Father  Feuardent,  in 
his  notes  on  Irenoeus,  6.  iii.  c.  3,  states:  confirm  "with 
wonderful  unanimity  "  the  statement  of  that  writer,  that 
"Peter  proclaimed  the  Gospel  at  Rome,  and  laid  the 
foundation  of  that  Church." 

This  same  writer  wonders  at"  the  abandoned  effrontery 
with  M^hich  Velenus,  lllyricus  (otherwise  called  Flacius, 
1520-75),  Funccius,  and  other  French  Protestants,  have 


TGXA  TTUS.  25 

the  impiuleiice  to  jabber  about  Peter's  liaving  never  been 
at  Rome." 

After  such  a  stout  assertion,  how  surprising  to  read 
in  Father  Ceilliee  (vol.  i.  p.  490)  concerning  Linus: 
"The  work  that  we  have  in  two  books  under  the  name 
of  St.  Linns  is  full  of  ridiculous  fables,  and  is  not  worth 
reading." 

Cardinal  Bella rmixe,  in  his  Ecclesiastical  Writers, 
states:  "We  consider  that  Linus'  writings  are  not 
extant,  and  that  those  which  now  pass  under  liis  name 
are  forgeries." 

With  respect  to  Anacletus  we  have  similar  state- 
ments from  Papal  authors.  Tillemont  (1637-98) 
writes:  "We  have  three  Decretals  under  the  name  of 
St.  Anacletus.  All  the  learned  are  agreed  nowadavs 
that  these  letters  are  frauds  and  forgeries,  and  that  all 
the  Decretal  letters  attributed  to  the  Popes  who  lived 
prior  to  Pope  Siricius  (a.  d.  385)  are  equall}'  so." 

Father  Dupix  (1657-1719),  the  learned  historian,  in 
his  chapter  on  the  False  Decretals,  gives  his  reasons  for 
regarding  these  epistles  as  a  "forgery"  and  an  "impos- 
ture." 

"Works  have  been  published  attributed  to  St.  Linus 
as  their  author.  They  are  now  pronounced  apocrj'phal, 
because  they  are  infected  with  errors  resembling  those 
of  the  Manicheans." — Artaud.,  Hist.  Popes,!.  19. 

IGNATIUS. 

Ignatius,  bishop  at  Antioch  (a.  d.  107),  is  appealed 
to  by  Bellarraine,  Pearson,  Baratier,  and  by  Father 
McCorry  in  his  tract  "Was  St.  Peter  Ever  at  Rome?" 
as  a  witness  on  the  affirmative  side  of  this  question. 


26  WAS  PETER  EVER  AT  ROME? 

Baroniiis,  Feuardeiit  and  Valesius  (Henry  De  Valois, 
1603-76),  wisely  decline  an  appeal  to  him. 

This  supposed  evidence  of  Ignatius  is  found  in  his 
Epistle  to  the  Romans,  eh.  iv. — "Not  as  Peter  and  Paul 
do  I  give  you  directions.  The}^  Avere  Apostles,  I  am 
condemned.  They  were  free;  I  am  still  a  slave.  But 
if  I  suffer  I  am  a  freed  man  in  Jesus,  and  1  shall  arise  in 
him  a  free  man." 

Bunsen's  rendering  is:  "1  am  not  commanding  you 
like  Peter  and  Paul;  they  were  Apostles,  I  a  condemned 
convict;  they  were  free,  I  am  hitherto  a  slave.  But  if 
I  suffer,  I  am  a  freed  man  in  Jesus  Christ,  and  I  shall  rise 
from  the  dead  like  him,  a  free  man." 

Pearson  on  these  words  remarks;  "For  what  can  be 
more  manifest  than  it  is  from  those  words  to  the 
Romans,  that  Ignatius  must  have  had  an  idea  that  Peter 
proclaimed  the  Gospel  at  Rome,  was  put  to  death  there, 
as  well  as  Paul." 

Baratier  exclaims:  "Why  does  this  writer  mention 
Peter  and  Paul  together  in  this  waj^,  if  it  were  not  that 
they  were  both  at  Rome.  .  .  It  is  evident  that  Ignatius 
believed  that  Peter  had  been  at  Rome." 

McCoRRY  argues:  "This  proves  that  the  Romans  had 
been  taught  by  St.  Peter  and  St.  Paul,  and  had  received 
their  commands,  and  of  course  shows  that  both  Apostles 
had  been  at  Rome." 

To  prove  that  the  Apostle  Peter  left  the  field  to  which 
our  Lord  had  especially  assigned  him,  the  Jewish  peoj^le; 
entered  upon  his  brother  Paul's  work,  that  of  convert- 
ing the  Gentiles  of  the  West;  that  he  forsook  Babylon, 
in  whose  neighborhood  Avere  over  a  million  of  his  people, 
and  from  which  city  he  wrote  his  first  Epistle;  and 
came  to  the  eight  thousand  Jews  at  Rome  under  the  care 


IGNATIUS.  27 

of  Paul,  Clement,  Andronicus,  Junia,  and  other  teachers, 
will  demand  the  most  overwhelming  testimony;  so 
improbable  and  inconsistent  would  be  such  a  proceeding 
on  the  part  of  a  wise  and  faithful  Evangelist. 

So  far  from  such  an  assertion,  Ignatius  simply  says, 
Peter  and  Paul  had  directed  and  instructed  the  Roman 
Christians. 

This  Peter  had  done  with  respect  to  the  strangers 
from  Rome  on  the  Day  of  Pentecost;  and  these  had 
returned  to  found  the  Church,  which  Paul  at  a  later  day 
instructed. 

"The  Church  of  Rome  seems  to  have  been  founded 
by  laymen.  Bunsen,  Michaelis,  Rambach,  Rosenmuller, 
and  others  suppose  that  the  Church  at  Rome  was  founded 
by  some  of  the  Roman  converts  under  Peter's  preach- 
ing on  the  day  of  the  great  Pentecostal  blessing. 
Among  the  hearers  were  'strangers  of  Rome,  Jews  and 
Proselytes,'"  Acts  i.  10. — Sawyer's  Organic  Christ- 
ianity, p.  32. 

OwEX,  Pref.  Calvin  on  Romans,  remarks:  "The  only 
thing  which  Peter  appears  to  have  had  to  do  in  forming 
and  founding  a  Church  at  Rome  was  to  have  been  the 
instrument  in  the  conversion,  at  the  Day  of  Pente- 
cost, of  those  who  in  all  probability  were  the  first  who 
introduced  the  Gospel  unto  Rome;  and  it  is  probable 
that  it  was  this  circumstance  which  occasioned  the  tra- 
dition that  he  had  been  tlie  founder  of  that  Church. 

"Less  occasion  has  often  produced  tales  of  this  kind." 

It  should  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  ancient  writers,  in 
speaking  of  the  combined  common  work  of  the  twelve 
Apostles  in  founding  Churches,  use  the  names  of  Peter 
and  Paul  to  include  all  who  engaged  in  this  evangelical 
mission. 


28  WAS  PETER  EVER  AT  ROME? 

Greenavood,  in  liis  Cathedra  Petri,  vol.  i.  p.  24, 
remarks:  "It  lias  been  alleged  with  great  plausibility 
that  the  distinctive  ministries  of  each — that  of  Peter  to 
the  Circumcision,  and  of  Paul  to  the  Uncircumcision — 
had  been  acknowledged  by  themselves,  and  had  become  a 
matter  of  notoriety  to  the  whole  Church.  These  two 
functions  together  comprehended  one  entire  ministrj^, 
in  such  wise  that  the  association  of  the  names  was  in 
fact  rather  an  association  of  ideas  than  of  persons.  The 
names  of  Peter  and  Paul  could  thus  come  to  represent 
the  community  or  union  of  the  ministry  of  the  Jews  and 
Gentiles,  the  twofold  foundations  or  pillars  of  the  Gospel 
dispensation;  a  sense  in  which  they  are  frequently 
spoken  of  by  subsequent  Christian  Avorkers." 

Nor  do  these  Avriters  regard  the  presence  of  an  Apostle 
as  necessary,  Avhen  alluding  to  the  founding  of  a  Church 
by  the  same  mode  of  expression.  We  have  a  marked 
instance  of  this  in  Baronius  (1538-1607),  a  later  Roman 
writer,  who  says,  a.  d.  39,  paragraph  19:  "For  what 
does  it  mean  when  Peter  is  said  to  have  founded  the 
Church  at  Antioch?  They  are  quite  wrong  who  think 
that  Peter  raust  have  gone  to  Antioch  for  that  purpose." 

Though  Peter  never  preached  in  Rome  in  person,  and 
remained  in  Bab^don  and  its  neighborhood,  still  he  was 
connected  closely  with  the  Christians  of  Rome,  who  had 
been  converted  in  Jerusalem  by  his  preaching,  and  had 
returned  to  preach  the  Gospel  in  the  Imperial  City. 

Thus  had  Peter  preceded  even  Paul  in  the  work  at 
Rome,  and  in  this  way  may  be  truly  said  to  have  been 
the  founder  of  that  Church,  and  of  others  whither  his 
converts  were  dispersed. 

Thus,  naturally,  may  the  language  of  the  Martyr 
Ignatius  be  understood,  without  supposing  that  he  gave 


countenance  to  the  improbable  supposition  that  Peter 
had  forsaken  the  millions  of  Jews  of  the  East  to  visit 
the  thousands  at  Rome,  so  carefully  tended  and  in- 
structed bj^  his  brother  Apostle,  Paul,  together  with  the 
Heathen,  as  previously  arranged. 

Wylie,  on  Papacy,  p.  233,  justly  says:  "There  was 
a  formal  arrangement  among  the  Apostles  touching  that 
matter.  Peter,  along  with  James  and  John,  gave  his 
hand  to  Paul,  and  struck  a  bargain  with  him  that  he 
(Paul)  should  go  to  the  Heathen,  and  they  (James,  Ce- 
phas, and  John)  unto  the  Circumcision.  If  then,  Peter 
became  Bishop  of  Rome,  he  violated  the  solemn  pac- 
tion."    (See  Gal.  ii.  9.) 

We  have  thus  far  seen  that  from  the  language  of 
Ignatius,  the  Church  of  Rome  derives  no  support  from 
her  claim  to  the  residence  and  episcopate  of  Peter  in  the 
Imperial  City. 

But  Ignatius,  in  one  aspect,  may  be  regarded  rather 
as  an  antagonist  to  the  claims  of  the  Roman  Communion. 
This  point  is  forcibly  presented  in  the  Christian  Ob- 
s^yrver,  November,  1883,  p.  742:  "The  words  of  Igna- 
tius, as  Archbishop  Wake  gives  them,  are  these:  '7 
write  unto  the  Churches^  and  signify  to  them  all,  that  I 
am  willing  to  die  for  God,  unless  you  hinder  me  .  .  . 
I  do  not,  as  Peter  and  Paul,  command  you.  They  were 
Apostles,  I  a  comlemned  man.  They  were  free,  but  I 
am  even  unto  this  day  a  servant.' 

"The  Apostles  had  written  unto  the  Churches;  so  did 
Ignatius.  But  the  Apostles,  so  writing,  could  command 
the  Churches,  while  he,  Ignatius,  did  not  pretend  to  do 
so.  Is  not  this  one  })lain  meaning  of  the  words?  But 
where  is  there  one  word  implying  that  Peter  had  visited 
Rome? 


30  WAS  PETER  EVER  AT  ROME? 

"On  the  other  hand,  see  Avhat  is  implied  in  the  silence 
of  Ignatius.  The  assumption  of  Father  McCorry  is  that 
Peter  had  founded  the  Church  of  Rome,  was  its  bishop 
for  five-and-twenty  years,  and  was  finally  martyred 
there;  and  that  he  left  his  primacy,  the  jiopedom,  to  the 
bishops  who  should  follow  him  in  that  chair. 

"  Well,  we  now  have  an  aged  bishop,  in  the  next  cen- 
tury, writing  seven  letters  to  various  Churches  just 
before  his  martyrdom.  In  six  of  these  epistles,  he  par- 
ticularly  notices  their  bishops.  But  Avhen  he  comes  to 
the  Church  of  Rome  for  the  first  time  he  is  silent.  The 
Romish  hypothesis  now  is  that  at  Rome  there  Avas  the 
Chair  of  St.  Peter;  that  the  bishop  of  that  city  was  St. 
Peter's  successor,  the  Primate  of  the  whole  Church,  and 
in  that  city  they  showed  the  burying  place  of  the  Apos- 
tles. How  can  it  be  accounted  for  then,  that  Ignatius 
•—fond  to  an  excess  of  bishops,  and  just  about  to  follow 
St.  Peter  in  his  martyrdom — should  write  to  Rome, 
without  once  alluding  to  St.  Peter's  chair;  and  should 
even  refer  to  St.  Peter's  epistles  without  remembering 
the  fact  (if  it  ioere  a  fact) — that  the  remains  of  tlfe 
Apostle  rested  in  that  soil? 

"Truly,  that  remarkable  silence,  \.o  w^e  Father  Mc- 
Corry's  own  phrase,  'speaks  volumes.'  How  co?<?f? that 
aged  bishop,  who  in  no  other  case  forgets  to  address  and 
compliment  the  bishop  and  the  Church  to  which  he  was 
writing — how  comes  he  to  forget  to  venerate  the  suc- 
cessor of  St.  Peter,  the  primate  of  the  whole  Church? 
Only  in  one  way  can  this  omission  be  accounted  for. 
Ignatius  knew  nothing  of  any  successor  of  St.  Peter;  in 
his  days  there  was  no  Pope.  To  believe  that  there  was 
a  Pope  at  Rome  in  a.  d.  147,  and  that  St.  Peter's 
tomb  was  known  to  be   there,  is   exceedingly  difficult, 


lOXATIUH.  31 

in  the  face  of  Ignatius'  silence  on  both  these 
topics." 

In  the  following  critical  investigation,  we  shall  find 
that  the  few  expressions  of  the  Fathers  with  respect  to 
Peter's  connection  with  Rome,  may  be  made  to  corre- 
spond with  the  Scripture,  by  a  rational  and  consistent 
interpretation,  on  principles  exacted  in  all  courts  of  law. 

The  Scripture  is  utterl}^  silent  with  respect  to  this 
alleged  Roman  visit  of  the  Apostle;  history  presents  no 
reliable  testimony  that  Peter  ever  deserted  Babylon  for 
Rome. 

The  original  words  of  Ignatius  are  herewith  pre- 
sented : 

ovx  wf  IlfTpof  Kal  UavTiog  diardaao/uat.  vfilv  eKelvoi  drrdaro^ioi.,  eyi) 
KaTaapiTOQ'  eKelvoi  eXevdepoi,  kyio  de  fie^P'  ^^'^  6ov'Aog,  (iXTC  idv  'jraf^o) 
dwe'^ehdepog  'Ir/aov  BpiCTOv,  Kal  avaan'/aofiai  ev  dhrtf  ekevdepoq'  vvv 
fxavdavo)  dedifiEVoq  urjdev  enLdbficiv. 

— Ignatius  to  the  Romans,  §  iv. 


CHAPTER   III. 
Clement  of  IRome. 

Clement  of  Rome,  a  couteniporary  of  tbe  A]:>ostle,  is 
appealed  to  both  by  Protestant  and  Roman  writers  in 
support  of  the  tradition  that  Peter  visited  the  Imperial 
City.  If  this  writer  makes  this  affirmation,  it  is  enough 
to  settle  the  question.  "  Clement,"  says  Chevalier  in  his 
Introduction  to  his  traiislation  of  the  Epistle  of  this 
writer:  "is  believed  upon  the  general  testinionj^  of 
ecclesiastical  historians,  to  have  been  the  same  whom  St. 
Paul  mentions  among  his  fellow-laboreis,  whose  names 
are  written  in  the  book  of  life." — Philippians  iv.  3. 

"The  epistle  of  Clement  to  the  Church  at  Corinth  is 
the  only  genuine  work  of  any  uninspired  writer  of  the 
first  centurj^  noAV  extant." — Riddle's  Eccles.  Chron., 
p.  13. 

"  By  ecclesisatical  writers  generally  nothing  that  is  not 
divine  is  admitted  to  be  of  higher  authority." — Cole- 
man's Apos.  and  Prim.  Ch.,  p.  164. 

Clement,  accoi'ding  to  Bunsen's  Chronology,  Hip- 
polytus,  vol.  i.  p.  44,  was  bishoj>  between  the  years  78 
and  86. 

Of  this  Epistle  Bishop  Lightfoot  writes:  "  ^Ye  can- 
not hesitate  to  accept  the  universal  testimony  of  antiq- 
uity that  it  was  written  by  Clement,  the  reputed  Bishop 
of  Rome."  Of  his  office  he  remarks:  "He  was  rather 
the  chief  of  the  presbyters,  than  the  chief  over  the 
presbyters." — Christ.  Ministry,  p.  67. 

32 


CLEMENT  OF  ROME.  33 

The  testimony  of  this  earliest  and  most  esteemed  of 
uninspired  writers  is  of  great  importance  as  settling  the 
question,  that  the  order  of  bishops  and  presbyters  was 
the  same,  in  both  the  Churches  of  Corinth  and  of  Rome; 
and  no  argument  whatever  can  be  based  on  it  in  support 
of  the  authority  of  the  Episcopal  office  as  a  distinct 
order. 

As  to  the  hypothesis  of  Peter's  visit  to  Rome,  some 
Roman  Catholic  and  Protestant  writers  have  claimed 
Clement  as  a  witness  for  the  affirmative. 

Baronius,  Bellarmine,  and  Pearson  prudently  refrain 
from  appealing  to  bis  testimony. 

Feuardent,  Baratier,  Lardner,  and  McCorry  claim  him 
as  an  authority  for  Peter's  residence  at  Rome. 

McCoRKY  writes  thus  in  his  Treatise,  p.  67:  "The 
first  witness  that  we  shall  bring  is  Clement  the  Roman, 
a  disciple  of  Peter.  After  the  persecution  of  Diocletian 
had  subsided,  he  wrote  an  epistle  to  the  Corinthians;  in 
which  he  speaks  of  those  who  had  suffered  martyrdom 
at  Rome,  and  makes  distinct  mention  of  St.  Peter  as  the 
great  bishop  Avho  had  founded  and  governed  the  Roman 
Church.  He  says:  'Let  us  always  have  before  our  eyes 
those  good  Apostles :  Peter,  who  endured  so  many  labors, 
and  who,  dying  a  mart3'r,  departed  to  glory;  and  Paul, 
who  obtained  the  reward  by  patience,  and  suffered  mar- 
tyrdom under  the  emperors.  To  these  men,  who  had  led 
so  angelic  a  life,  a  vast  multitude  of  the  elect  were  added, 
who  rivaling  one  another  in  suffering  reproaches  and 
torments,  have  left  behind  them  for  our  sake  the  most 
beautiful  example.'  Now  here  is  a  declaration  from  a 
contemporary  writer  bearing  evidence  to  the  fact  that 
the  prince  of  the  Apostles  died  a  martyr  at  Rome." 

Dr.  Lardner,  in  his  Histoiy  of  the  Apostles,  in  the 


34  WAS  PETER  EVER  AT  ROME? 

article  on  Peter,  renders  Clement's  language  thus:  "Let 
us  set  before  our  eyes  the  excellent  Apostles:  Peter, 
who  through  unrighteous  zeal  underwent  not  one  or  two, 
but  many  labors,  till  at  last  being  martyred,  he  went 
to  the  place  of  glory  that  was  due  unto  him.  Through 
zeal,  Paul  obtained  the  reward  of  patience.  Seven  times 
he  was  in  bonds;  he  was  whipped,  he  was  stoned.  He 
preached  both  in  the  East  and  West,  and  having  taught 
the  world  righteousness, and  coming  to  the  borders  of  the 
West,  and  suffering  martyrdom  under  the  governors,  so 
he  departed  out  of  the  world,  and  Avent  to  the  most  holy 
place,  being  a  most  eminent  pattern  of  patience." 
Similar  is  the  translation  of  this  writer,  b}^  Wake,  Che- 
valier, Greenwood,  and  Simon,  except  the  passage,  "the 
borders  of  the  West."  Wake  renders  it,  "the  utmost 
bounds";  Chevalier,  "the  furthest  extremity";  Simon, 
"the  remotest  limits";  Greenwood,  "the  extreme  verge." 

With  respect  to  the  false  version  of  this  passage  of 
Clement,  offered  by  Father  McCorry,  Simon,  p.  309, 
remarks:  "The  translations  oi  this  writer  are  invalu- 
able as  showing  to  what  lengths  a  few  of  the  Roman 
clergy  now  among  us  go,  and  are  obliged  to  go  upon 
this  subject,  and  these  passages." 

We  have  another  illustration  of  this  style  of  version, 
in  Bishop  Kenrick  on  the  Primacy,  i">.  94,  ed.  1848,  who 
says:  "Clement.  .  .  .  declares  that  Peter  and  Paul 
suffered  martyrdom  in  Rome,  before  his  eyes." 

The  argument  of  Lardner  founded  on  these  words  of 
Clement,  for  the  supposed  Roman  residence  of  Peter,  is 
as  follows;  "From  these  jiassages  I  think  it  may  be 
justly  concluded  that  Peter  and  Paul  were  martyrs  at 
Rome,  in  the  time  of  Nero's  persecution.  For  they 
suffered  among  the  Romans,  where  Clement  was  bishop, 


CLEMENT  OF  ROME?  35 

and  in  whose  name  be  was  writing  to  the  Corinthians. 
They  were  martyrs,  when  many  others  were  an  example, 
ov pattern,  of  a  like  patience  among  them.  To  these 
Ajwstles,  says  Clement,  v:as  joined  a  great  multitude  of 
choice  ones,  that  is.  Christians.  This  is  a  manifest  de- 
scription of  Nero's  persecution  at  Rome,  when  a  multi- 
tude of  Christians  there  were  put  to  death,  under  griev- 
ous reproaches  and  exquisite  torments,  as  we  are  as- 
sured by  Tacitus.  These  were  joined  to  the  excellent 
Apostles,  Peter  and  Paul,  before  mentioned.  There- 
fore Peter  and  Paul  had  suffered  at  that  place,  and  at 
that  time;  and  as  it  seems,  according  to  this  account, 
at  the  beginning  of  that  persecution,  which  may  be 
reckoned  not  at  all  improbable. 

"When  Clement  saj'^s  ihnX,  Vax\\  suffered  martyrdom 
under  the  governors,  he  may  be  understood  to  mean  by 
order  of  the  magistrate.  It  cannot  be  here  inferred  that 
Peter  and  Paul  did  not  die  by  Nero's  order,  or  in  virtue 
of  his  edict  against  the  Christians.  It  should  be  con- 
sidered that  Clement  is  not  an  historian.  He  is  writing 
an  epistle  containing  divers  exhortations.  It  is  not 
needful  for  him  to  be  more  particular.  He  does  not 
name  the  city  in  which  Peter  and  Paul  died,  nor  the 
death  they  underwent.  But  he  intimates  that  they 
suffered  a  cruel  death,  together  with  many  choice  ones 
among  them,  which  must  mean  Rome;  and  he  plainly 
represents  these  Apostles  as  martyrs,  who  had  suffered 
through  envy  and  unrighteous  zeal.  The  place  and  the 
manner  of  their  death  were  well-known  to  the  Christians 
at  Corinth,  to  whom  Clement  was  writing." 

Lardner  goes  on  to  say  that  Clement  was  obliged  to  be 
"circumspect"  in  his  language  in  that  period  of  "perse- 
cution."    Lardner  argues,  against  Pearson,  that  Nero 


36  WAS  PETER  EVER  AT  ROME? 

was  in  Rome  ia  the  j^ear  68,  and  tliat  therefore  the 
terra  "governors"  may  refer  to  that  Emperor.  "As  for 
the  word  being  in  the  phiral  number;  it  is  no  uncommon 
thing  to  prefer  that  to  the  singular  when  we  are  obliged 
to  be  cautious,  etc.  .  .  So  that  I  must  take  the  liberty 
to  saj^,  that  Pearson's  observation,  that  Peter  and  Paul 
were  put  to  death,  not  by  Nei'o,  but  by  the  Prefect  of 
Rome,  or  some  other  great  officer,  in  the  absence  of 
the  Emperor,  appears  to  be  of  no  value,  and  it  is  desti- 
tute of  all  authority." — See  Watson's  Theological 
Tracts,  vol.  ii.  pp.  433-435. 

Dr.  Lardner  has  made  as  much  of  Clement's  words 
for  his  argument  as  is  possible.  (See  N.  Brit.  i?ey., 
November,  1848,  p.  32.) 

We  give  on  the  other  side  the  comments  of  three  bar- 
risters who  have  thoroughly  examined  the  question. 

Ecclesiastical  events  demand  as  careful  investigation 
as  any^  matters  of  importance. 

The  one  we  are  considering  has  been  made  by  the 
Church  of  Rome  one  of  vital  import,  and  it  is  bound  to 
furnish  irresistible,  incontestable  evidence. 

The  supposed  journey  of  Peter  to  Rome  does  not 
appear  to   be    sustained   by   trustworthy    testimony, 
according  to  the  view   of  the  learned  lawyers  whose 
opinions  are  herewith  presented. 

Greenwood,  Avho  has  written  the  political  history  of 
the  Latin  Pontificate,  in  his  Cathedra  Petri,  i.  20, 
writes  on  Clement's  language: 

"  In  proof  of  the  facts  here  stated  respecting  Peter  and 
Paul  as  parts  of  one  transaction,  it  has  been  observed 
that,  the  sufferings  and  death  of  both  being  mentioned, 
as  it  were  in  the  same  breath,  by  one  who  was  in  a  posi- 
tion to  be  an  eye-witness  of  the  things  he  relates,  a  pre- 


CLEMENT  OF  JiOME.  37 

sumption  arises  that  both  Apostles  -were  together  at 
Rome,  at  some  j^oint  of  time  between  the  closing  inci- 
dents of  St.  Luke's  narrative  and  the  death  of  Paul  in  the 
Neronian  persecution.  Peter's  martyrdom,  hoAvcvcr, 
is  only  remotely  alluded  to,  and  not  in  any  way  as  syn- 
chronous with  that  of  Paul.  Several  things  are  said  of 
Paul  that  are  not  said  of  Peter,  more  especially  the  act 
of  preaching  the  Gospel  in  the  far  West.  Lastly,  neither 
time  nor  place  of  the  martyrdom  of  either  is  mentioned; 
consequently,  all  ground  for  concluding,  from  this  pass- 
age in  the  writings  of  Clement  of  Rome,  that  Peter  and 
Paul  dwelt  and  suffered  together  in  that  city — seems  to 
fall  to  the  ground." 

Simon,  another  competent  legal  critic,  who,  for  the 
purpose  of  investigating  the  question  here  discussed, 
came  to  London,  and  almost  dwelt  in  the  British  Museum 
for  nine  months;  in  his  Mission  and  Mart^n'dom  of 
Peter,  p.  34,  writes  with  respect  to  Clement's  statement: 
"The  first  question  that  here  suggests  itself  is.  Why  is 
Paul's  journey  into  Europe  and  Paul's  martyrdom  at 
Rome,  so  pointedly  stated  in  the  very  same  paragraph 
in  which  nothing  more  is  said  of  Peter's  travels  or  of 
Peter's  martyrdom,  than  what  manifestly  presupposes 
the  Scripture  account  about  his  going  to  the  Jews  of  the 
Dispersion,  as  he  was  directed  by  his  Divine  Master,  and 
about  his  being  put  to  death  at  Babylon  as  his  own 
epistles  intimate?  How  is  it  that  Clement  makes  no 
allusion  to  a  residence  in  Europe,  or  even  to  a  martyr- 
dom there  for  the  Apostle  of  the  Cii'cumcision  as  well 
as  for  the  Apostle  of  the  Gentiles?  Peter's  martyrdom 
took  place  in  Clement's  lifetime;  how  is  it  that  Clement 
never  heard  of  anything  connected  with  it  at  variance 
with  the  facts  that  are  laid  before  us  in  the  Scriptures? 


38  WAS  PETER  EVER  AT  ROMKf 

But  we  do  not  inquire  for  the  evideuces  of  Peter's  hav- 
ing lived  and  died  as  is  indicated  in  the  sacred  text. 
Our  inquiry  is  for  the  alleged  evidence  of  his  not  having 
done  so.  Father  IVIcCorry  supposes  St.  Clement  to  speak 
of  the  martyrs  that  had  fallen  in  his  own  city!  whereas 
Clement  speaks  of  those  who  had  fallen  within  the 
memory  of  that  present  generation.  "  'Let  us  look  at 
the  illustrious  examples  of  our  oavn  age,'  says  the 
Bishop  of  Rome;  'let  us  take,  for  instance,  the 
Apostles!'  " 

BouziQUE,  a  recent  member  of  the  French  bar  and 
legislature,  in  his  History  of  Christianity,  in  his  ex- 
amination of  Clement,  remarks,  vol.  i,  p.  360:  "This 
passage,  which  clearly  excludes  the  idea  of  a  punishment 
simultaneously  undergone  at  Rome  by  the  two  Apostles, 
seems  nevertheless  to  have  been  one  of  the  principal 
sources  whence  proceeded  the  legends  on  the  abode  of 
Peter  in  that  city,  and  on  the  tragical  end  Avhich  the 
Apostle  to  the  Gentiles  found  there  at  the  same  time. 
It  is  necessary  to  remember  that  in  the  first  centuries 
Clement's  epistle  was  in  some  sort  received  as  a  sacred 
Scripture,  and  read  publicly  in  the  Churches  of  Greece, 
Asia  Minor,  and  all  the  Hellenic  lands.  This  habitual 
reading  singularly  formed  the  opinions  which  legend  had 
got  possession  of.  Clement  said  nothing  else  but  that 
Peter  and  Paul  were  persecuted  through  envy,  which 
caused  the  death  of  one  on  the  confines  of  the  West,  and 
made  the  other  seven  times  endure,  before  God  called 
him  to  himself. 

"But  in  ceaselessly  hearing  in  the  epistle  the  death 
of  the  two  Apostles  mentioned  close  together,  the  Greek 
Churches  came  to  believe  that  thej  perished  at  the  same 
time,  and  as  the  letter  came  from  Rome,  at  Rome  the 


CLEMENT  OF  ROME.  39 

hearers  placed  their  siniultancons  punishment  in 
thought. 

"It  was  supposed  that  Clement  had  been  the  disciple 
of  the  one,  as  of  the  other,  and  the  ocular  witness  of 
their  death.  .  .  If  you  call  to  mind  the  evils  endured 
as  much  by  Peter  as  by  Paul,  j^ou  see  that  it  is  the 
intention  of  offering  in  them  illustrious  examples  of 
the  evil  that  envy  may  engender,  and  not  to  make  them 
perish  in  the  same  time  and  in  the  same  place. 

"But  the  Christian  populace  made  a  mistake.  Clem- 
ent associated  the  two  in  the  example,  the  popular 
legend  associated  them  in  suffering  and  death.  It  is 
only  two  or  three  generations  after  the  first  epistle  of 
Clement  that  we  begin  to  find  some  traces  of  the  legend 
on  the  journey  and  the  death  of  Peter  at  Rome;  all  this 
time  was  needful  for  it  to  gain  a  certain  consistency. 

"The  whole  drift  of  Clement's  testimony,  then,  while 
it  breathes  not  one  word  of  support  of  St.  Peter's  visit 
to  Rome,  does  imply  by  the  distinction  drawn  between 
him  and  St  Paul,  that  he  did  not  preach  both  in  the  East 
and  in  the  West — i.  e.,  that  he  did  not  visit  Rome." 

Bacox,  in  his  Lives  of  the  Apostles,  thus  refers  to 
Lardner's  criticism.  Alluding  to  manuscript  lectures  of 
Professor  Murdock  on  this  subject  he  writes:  "Lardner 
also  gives  a  sort  of  abstract  of  the  passage  in  the 
Fathers  which  refers  to  this  subject,  but  not  near  so 
full,  nor  so  close  to  the  original  passages  as  that  of  Dr. 
Murdock,  although  he  refers  to  a  few  authors  not  alluded 
to  here,  whose  testimony,  however,  amounts  to  little  or 
nothing.  Lardner's  disposition  to  believe  all  these  fully 
established  Roman  fables  is  too  pronounced,  and  on 
these  points  his  accurac}'  appears  to  fail  in  maintaining 
its  sreneral  character. 


40  WAS  PETER   EVEE  AT  DOME? 

"However,  in  the  siiigle  passage  from  Clemens 
Romanus  referred  to  above,  he  is  very  full,  not  only 
translating  the  whole  passage  relating  to  Peter  and 
Paul,  but  entering  into  a  \Q\y  elaborate  discussion  of 
the  views  taken  of  it;  but  upon  all  he  fails  so  utterly' 
in  rearing  an  historical  argument  on  this  slender  basis, 
that  I  cannot  feel  called  on,  in  this  place,  to  do  an}'- 
thing  more  than  barely  refer  the  critical  reader  to  the 
passage  in  his  Life  of  Peter." 

Faussett,  in  Com.  on  1  Peter,  remarks:  "Clem- 
ent of  Rome  1  Epist.  ad  Corinthos,  Sec.  4,  5,  often 
quoted  for,  is  really  against  it.  He  mentions  Paul  and 
Peter  together,  but  makes  it  a  distinguishing  circum- 
stance of  Paul,  that  he  preached  both  in  the  East  and 
West,  implying  that  Peter  was  never  in  the  West  (2 
Pet.  i.  14).  "  *I  must  shortly  put  off  this  my  taber- 
nacle'implies  his  martyrdom  was  near;  j^et  he  makes 
no  allusion  to  Rome,  or  of  any  intention  of  visit- 
ing it." 

Giesler's  comment  is  brief:  "Clement  testifies  to 
his  mart3a'dom,  Ignatius  alludes  to  it." — Hist.  i.  81. 

As  we  are  dealing  with  a  question  of  vital  import,  as 
related  to  the  exclusive  claims  of  the  Church  of  Rome, 
with  its  one  hundred  millions  of  adherents,  too  much 
importance  cannot  be  attached  to  the  testimony  of  the 
witness  who,  alone  of  all  appealed  to,  had  personal  cog- 
nizance of  the  facts  in  the  case. 

Clement,  as  we  have  seen,  was  a  contemporary  of  the 
Apostle  Peter,  and  is  the  only  writer  of  the  period  who 
has  Avritten  a  line  bearing  on  the  subject,  now  extant. 

Peter's  residence  in  Rome  is  "the  very  nech  which 
attaches  the  head  to  the  body — the  'Primacy  of  Peter' 
to  the  Roman  Papacy."     We  must  do  justice  to  the 


CLEMENT  OF  ROME.  41 

arguments  of  the  eminent  writers,  both  Papal  and  Prot- 
estant, who  claim  for  the  Apostle  a  residence  in  Rome. 
No  one  has  argued  in  the  affirmative  more  ably  than  the 
"celebrated"  Protestant  scholar,  Lardner.  To  the 
argument  drawn  from  one  of  Clement's  expressions  to 
establish  clearly  the  fact  that  the  Apostle  was  not  at 
Rome,  Dr,  Lardner  thus  replies.  He  refers  to  the 
Preface  to  St.  Peter's  1st  Epistle,  written  by  the  com- 
mentator Dr.  Benson,  who  says: 

"Clemens  Romanus  (who  was  personally  acquainted 
with  the  Apostles  and  knew  very  well  where  they  trav- 
eled) writes  a  letter  from  Rome  to  Corinth,  and  mentions 
St.  Paul's  traveling  very  far  to  spread  the  Gospel ;  but  in 
the  same  section,  though  he  mentions  St.  Peter's  suffer- 
ings and  martrydom,  yet  he  says  nothing  of  his  travel- 
ing much,  not  one  word  of  his  ever  having  been  in 
Rome."  To  this  Lardner  replies:  '■^ First.  It  seems 
to  me  that  Clement  says  Peter  and  Paul  suffered  mar- 
tyrdom at  Rome.  For  speaking  of  the  great  multitude 
of  the  elect,  loho  had  been  an  excellent  example  of  x><^- 
tience  among  them^  meaning  the  Romans,  he  says  they 
loere  joined  to  or  with  the  good  Apostles,  before  men- 
tioned. Therefore  the  Apostles  had  suffered  in  the  same 
place.  Certainly  Clement,  who  wrote  this,  did  not  think 
that  Peter  died  at  Babylon  in  Mesopotamia,  and  Paul  at 
Rome  in  Italy. 

^^  Secondly.  The  reason  why  Clement  so  particularly 
mentions  St.  Paul's  travels  probably  was  because  the 
extent  of  his  preaching  was  very  remarkable.  And  it  is 
likely  that  Clement  refers  to  Rom.  xv.  19. 

"  Thirdly.  His  omitting  to  speak  of  Peter's  travels 
is  not  a  denial  of  his  having  traveled  a  great  deal.  Nor 
does  it  imply  that  he  had  not  been  at  Rome.     St.  Paul 


*2  WAS  PETER  EVM  AT  ROME? 

must  have  been  some  time  in  the  West,  and  at  Rome,  if 
he  suffered  martyrdom  there.  But  Clement  does  not  say 
so,  though  he  knew  it  very  well.  As  did  the  Corinthians 
likewise.  But  when  we  speak  or  Avrite  of  things  well 
known  (as  these  things  were  at  that  time),  there  is  no 
need  to  be  very  particular.  It  was  sufficient  if  Clement 
mentioned  such  things  as  Avould  render  his  exhortations 
effectual. 

"  Upon  the  whole  I  cannot  but  think  that  these  passages 
of  Clement  bear  a  testimony  to  the  martyrdoms  both  of 
Peter  and  Paul,  and  that  at  Rome,  which  cannot  be 
evaded." 

See  Beecher's  Pap.  Conspiracy,  p.  248:  Shepherd's 
Hist.  Ch.  of  Rome,  p.  529:  Ellendorf,  Bib.  Sac,  Janu- 
ary, 1859,  p.  IIV,  Butler's  St.  Paul  in  Rome,  p.  266. 

llie  Christian  Observer,  November,  185:3,  p.  741,  takes 
an  entirely  opposite  view  of  Clement's  words.  He 
writes:  "We  remark  two  things:  First.  There  is  no 
allusion  whatever  to  Rome.  That  city  is  not  named  or 
referred  to  in  any  way  whatever.  The  Apostle  does 
not  allude  to  our  own  country',  or  our  own  Church,  but 
he  passes  from  ancient  examples  to  the  examples  of  otir 
oicn  age  or  time. 

"  Secondly.  But,  speaking  of  the  two  most  eminent 
Apostles,  Peter  and  Paul,  he  particularizes  one  charac- 
teristic of  St.  Paul,  which  does  not  apply  to  St.  Peter. 
Peter,  he  says,  underwent  many  sufferings,  till  at  last, 
being  martyred,  he  went  to  the  place  of  glory  that  was 
due  to  him. 

"But  of  Paul  he  says,  seven  times  he  was  in  bonds, 
he  was  whipped,  he  was  stoned,  he  preached  both  in  the 
East  and  in  the  West;  and  so  having  taught  the  whole 
world  righteousness,  and  for  that  end  traveled  even  unto 


CLEMENT  OF  HOME.  4S 

the  utmost  bounds  of  the  East,  he  at  last  suffered  mar- 
tyrdom. Here  is  a  feature  ascribed  to  St.  Paul  which 
is  not  touched  upon  in  the  description  of  St.  Peter. 

"Now,  when  I  describe  two  eminent  men,  and  speak 
of  one  of  them  as  deeply  learned,  I  thereby  imply  that 
this  is  a  point  in  which  he  is  distinguished  from  the 
other. 

"If  I  say  of  two  brothers  that  the  younger  one  has 
traveled  much,  the  hearer  quite  understands  me  to  imply 
that  the  same  thing  cannot  be  said  of  the  elder. 

"And  so  in  like  manner,  when,  panegyrizing  the  two 
apostles,  Clement  points  out  the  feature  in  St.  Paul,  that 
he  preached  both  in  the  East  and  in  the  West,  and  speaks 
especially  of  his  travels;  we  rightly  understand  now,  to- 
day, by  implication,  that  this  was  a  point  in  which  he 
exceeded  St.  Peter — in  short,  that  St.  Paul,  going  to  the 
Gentiles,  preached  both  in  the  East  and  in  the  West; 
while  St.  Peter,  the  Apostle  of  the  Circumcision,  stayed 
in  Babylon,  where  the  Jews  were  chiefly  resident. 

"The  whole  drift  of  Clement's  testimony,  then,  while 
it  breathes  not  one  word  in  support  of  St.  Peter's  visit 
to  Rome,  does  imply,  by  the  distinction  drawn  between 
him  and  St.  Paul,  that  he  did  not  preach  both  in  the 
East  and  in  the  West — /.  e.,  that  he  did  not  visit  Rome. 
His  testimony,  therefore,  is  not  in  Father  McCorry's 
favor,  but  rather  against  him.  Thus,  the  very  first 
witness  produced,  instead  of  proving  the  advocate's  case, 
goes  far  to  establish  the  very  opposite.'''' 

The  North  British  Review,  November,  1888,  on 
Scheler's  translation  of  Ellendorf's  essay  on  Peter's 
Roman  residence,  says  of  Clement :  "  The  earliest  testi- 
mony Avhich  is  generally  alleged  in  support  of  the  tra- 
dition is  that  of  Clement,  third  Bishop  of  Rome,  who, 


44  WAS  PETER  EVER  AT  ROME? 

ill  liis  lirst  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians  (p.  5),  exhorts 
the  latter  to  look  for  courage  and  perseverance  to  the 
examples  set  by  the  Apostles;  and  then  draws  a  parallel 
between  Peter  and  Paul  both  having  suffered  martyr- 
dom for  the  sake  of  Christ.  But  be  does  not  add  one 
word  as  to  where  and  lohen  they  suffered,  and  the 
inference  drawn  from  his  words  is  therefore  wholly 
gratuitous:  the  more  so,  as  he  nowhere  else  mentions 
that  St.  Peter  ever  set  foot  in  Rome.  A  similar  inter- 
l^retation  is  forced  upon  an  expression  of  Ignatius,  in 
whose  Epistle  to  the  Romans  the  words  occur:  1  com- 
mand you  not  like  Peter  and  Paul,'  but  surely,  if  such 
expressions  be  proof,  what  is  there  that  may  not  be 
I^roved?" 

Dick,  Theology,  ii.  p.  468,  observes:  "Clement,  who 
is  so  favorably  mentioned  in  the  New  Testament,  in  an 
Epistle  \vritten  from  Rome  to  the  church  at  Corinth, 
says  that  Paul  suffered  martyrdom  in  the  West,  but 
takes  no  notice  of  the  martyrdom  of  Peter.  His  silence 
is  absolutely  unaccountable  if,  as  the  Papists  tell  us, 
Peter  had  been  Bishop  of  Rome,  and  had  been  crucified 
before  the  eyes  of  Clement." 

Froschammer,  Romance  of  Rom.,  p.  20,  remarks:  "If 
Peter  had  labored  and  died  in  Rome  as  well  as  Paul,  why 
does  not  Clement  say  also  of  him,  that  having  preached 
in  the  East  and  West,  he  also  died  in  the  West?  Mani- 
festly Clement  in  these  w^ords  means  to  say  something 
of  Paul  Avhich  could  not  be  ascribed  to  Peter." 

Ellexdorf,  a  Roman  Catholic  Professor  in  Berlin, 
has  w-ritten  an  exhaustive  critical  inquiry  on  the  subject 
here  discussed,  which  was  translated  in  the  Bihliotheca 
Sacra  for  Julj',  1858,  and  January,  1859.  With  respect 
to  Clement's  language  he  remarks :  "  When  w' e  remem- 


CLEMENT'S  EPISTLE  SUPPRESSED.  45 

ber  that  accordiug  to  Tertullian's  account,  Clement  was 
consecrated  by  Peter  as  Bishop  of  Rome,  the  strange 
way  in  which  Clement  here  mentions  Peter  is  very  re- 
markable, and  renders  the  account  suspicious.  When 
Clement  says  distinctly  of  Paul,  that  he  came  to  Rome 
and  suffered  martyrdom  under  Nero,  the  same  reason  he 
had  likewise  in  the  case  of  Peter,  if  he  really  had  been 
at  Rome,  and  was  his  friend  and  teacher." 

With  respect  to  the  alleged  testimony  of  Ignatius,  the 
same  writer  says:  "Are  the  Epistles  of  Ignatius  genu- 
ine? Is  that,  particularly,  to  the  Romans  genuine? 
And  if  it  be  genuine,  is  not  that  Petrus  smuggled  in, 
like  so  many  other  things  of  Avhich  criticism  must  clear 
these  Epistles  before  they  have  their  former  shape? 
They  can  hardly  serve  as  testimony  in  so  important  a 
matter:  least  of  all  can  that  passage,  which  in  every  re- 
spect has  nothing  of  evidence  in  itself,  even  if  it  be 
genuine"  (1859,  p.  85). 

Clement's  epistle   suppressed. 

How  this  epistle  of  Clement  was  practically  suppressed 
and  lost  in  the  Western  Church,  for  so  man}'-  centuries, 
is  an  interesting  subject  of  inquiry — we  have  not  time 
to  dwell  on  it.  KE>fNiON  in  his  work,  "St.  Peter  and 
Rome,"  p.  25,  thus  writes  on  this  point: 

"As  an  instance  of  the  attempt  to  get  rid  of  docu- 
ments which  are  found  inconvenient,  I  may  mention 
perhaps  that  very  epistle  of  Clement  you  allude  to. 
When  we  remember  the  high  character  and  prominent 
position  of  Clement,  and  the  great  estimation  in  which 
this  epistle  Avas  held,  we  cannot  but  wonder  how  it  came 
to  be  so  completely  suppressed  that  for  many  centuries 
no  copy  was  known  to  exist,  and  that  when  found  it  was 


46  WAS  PETER  EVER  AT  ROME? 

not  in  the  Western,  but  in  the  Eastern  Church — the  first 
MS.  coming  from  Alexandria,  the  second  from  Con- 
stantinople, and  the  third  from  Syria.  The  wonder 
ceases  when  we  find  that  the  epistle  is  altogether  incon- 
sistent with  the  pretensions  of  the  mediaeval  Romish 
Church.  Clement  of  Rome  writes  as  a  Protestant 
bishop  might  do,  but  certainly  not  as  Pio  IX.  would 
have  done  under  the  same  circumstances." 

"Clement  was  a  Roman  bishop,"  writes  Edgar  in  his 
"Variations  of  Popery,"  p.  44,  "and  interested  in  a 
peculiar  manner  in  the  dignity  of  the  Roman  See.  An 
apostolic  predecessor,  besides,  would  have  reflected 
honor  on  his  successor  in  the  hierarchy.  He  mentions 
his  pretended  predecessor  indeed,  but  omits  any  allusion 
to  his  journey  to  Rome,  or  his  occupation  of  the  Pon- 
tifical throne." 

There  were  good  reasons  for  the  panegyrists  of  the 
Roman  See,  who  boasted  that  tioo  Apostles  founded  their 
church,  and  that  they  possessed  their  bones  and  their 
sepulchers,  to  put  out  of  their  Avay  the  letters  of  a  Roman 
bishop,  a  contemporary,  who,  writing  of  these  Apostles, 
says  nothing  of  the  execution  of  one,  Avhose  martyrdom 
he  must  have  witnessed,  and  whose  funeral  services  he 
would  naturally  have  conducted,  if  this  Apostle  had  died 
at  Rome.  Especially,  moreover,  as  it  is  claimed  that 
Clement  had  been  consecrated  by  Peter.  The  silence 
of  this  letter  of  Bishop  Clement  on  these  points  was  too 
convincing  a  negative  argument,  and  efforts  would  be 
made  to  consign  it  to  oblivion,  by  those  who  were  so 
busy  in  manufacturing  evidence  from  idle  Romances, 
to  establish  a  Roman  residence  for  Peter.  Turretin, 
Op.,  iii.  148,  well  argues:  "Who  could  believe  that  Clem- 
ent would  omit  to  mention  Peter's  visit  to  the  West, 


CLEMENT'S  EPISTLE  SUPPRESSED.  47 

and  his  stay  in  Rome,  and  his  martyrdom  under  the 
governors  there,  which  he  narrates  of  Pan],  if  these 
events  had  occnrred? 

"  In  what  obscurity  are  involved  the  far  more  impor- 
tant contests  of  Peter  at  Rome,  his  punishment  like  that 
of  Christ — nay,  more  severe — his  body  inverted,  over- 
looking Rome;  and  moreover,  the  previous  consecration 
of  his  church  and  appointment  of  his  successor,  even  as 
they  would  have  it,  of  Clement  himself? 

"Neither  are  these  authors  to  be  mentioned,  on  the 
other  part,  who  relate  the  visit  and  the  mart3^rdom  of 
Peter  at  Rome,  as  Ignatius  or  Papias,  who  were  either 
later  than  Clement,  or  were  certainly  of  doubtful  author- 
ity or  judgment." 

Uhlor^t  in  Schaflf-Herzog.  Encyc.  presents  the  his- 
tory of  the  Epistles:  "Clement's  two  Ejnstles  to  the 
Corinthians,  especially  the  first,  belong  among  the  most 
important  documents  still  extant. 

"In  the  ancient  Church  they  were  held  in  the  greatest 
esteem,  and  in  many  places  thej^  were  read  in  Divine 
Service.  Nevertheless,  after  the  fifth  centur}',  they 
disappeared  from  the  Western  Church,  and  remained 
completely  unknown  until  Junius  rediscovered  them  in 
the  celebrated  Cod-.  Alex.,  a  present  from  Cyrillus 
Lucai'is  to  King  Charles  I.,  and  published  them  at  Ox-. 
ford  (1633). 

"Up  to  1875  this  manuscript  remained  the  only  one 
known.  .  .  In  1875  Bryennios,  Metropolitan  of  Ser- 
ra?,  gave  an  edition  from  a  newl}^  discovered  manu- 
script in  the  library  of  the  Holy  Sepulcher  at  Farnari, 
Constantinople." 


48  WAS  PETER   EVER  AT  ROME? 


WAS    PETER    MARTYRED  r 


Another  point  of  great  importance  in  this  inquiry  is 
tbe  fact,  that  Clement  does  not  affirm  that  the  Apostle 
Peter  suffered  martyrdom.  He  is  the  only  authority 
worthy  of  consideration  as  to  the  matter  Avho  has  been 
appealed  to,  and  this  from  a  misconception,  we  think, 
of  his  language.  Clement's  words  are  thus  rendered  by 
an  able  writer  in  the  Neio  BrunsioicJc  Hevieio,  August, 
1854,  p.  293: 

"It  is  certainly  a  remarkable  fact  that  Clement, 
whom  the  'Letters  of  the  Pope'  makes  the  immediate 
successor  of  Peter  in  the  Roman  Pontificate,  should 
have  written  this  long  and  important  letter  and  never 
have  spoken  directly  or  indirectly  of  Peter  having  been 
'in  Rome.'  The  only  allusion  it  contains  to  Peter  is 
the  following  sentence:  'Peter  having  on  account  of 
zeal,  suffered  not  one,  but  many  hardships  (ponoics),  and 
thus  having  given  his  testimony  (houtos  marturesas), 
went  to  the  deserved  place  of  glory.' 

"The  testimony  of  death  is  jjlainly  not  alluded  to 
here,  for  the  expression  'thus'  implies  that  it  was  the 
testimony  of  ''many  hardships.''  " 

When  we  consider  that  the  primary  meaning  of  the 
verb  here  used,  and  as  always  employed  in  the  New 
Testament,  is  merely  "to  witness";  that  it  had  no  other 
meaning  for  a  century  after  Clement's  time;  that  Clem- 
ent uses  the  same  word  with  respect  to  Abraham  (Sec. 
xvii.),  who  certainly  was  not  executed;  it  is  clear  that 
he  gives  no  testimony  to  show  that  the  Apostle  Peter 
died  by  violence.  This  point  is  fully  discussed  in 
Bacon's  "Lives  of  the  Apostles,"  pp.  265-67.  He 
writes : 


WAS  PETER  MARTYRED  ?  ^  '^ 

"The  only  authority  which  can  be  esteemed  worthy 
of  consideration  on  this  point  is  that  of  Clemens 
Romanus,  who  in  the  latter  part  of  the  first  century 
(about  the  year  70,  or  as  others  say,  96),  in  his  Epistle 
to  the  Corinthians  uses  these  words  respecting  Peter: 
'Peter  on  account  of  unrighteous  hatred,  underwent 
not  one,  or  two,  but  many  labors,  and  having  thus  borne 
his  testimony,  departed  to  the  place  of  glory  which  was 
his  due'  {ovroj?  [xaprvptjaa?  inopsv^t]  €i?  rov 
6q)eiXo^uvov  roTtov  6o^tj?). 

"Now  it  is  by  no  means  certain  that  the  prominent 
word  (marturesas)  necessarily  means  'bearing  witness 
by  death,'  or  martyrdom  in  the  modern  sense.  The 
primary  sense  of  this  word  is  merely  Ho  loitness,^  in 
which  simple  meaning  alone  it  is  used  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament: nor  can  any  passage  in  the  sacred  writings  be 
shown,  in  which  this  verb  means  'to  bear  witness  to  any 
cause,  by  death.''  This  was  a  technical  sense  (if  I  may 
so  name  it),  which  the  word  at  last  acquired  among  the 
Fathers,  when  they  were  speaking  of  those  who  bore 
witness  to  the  truth  by  their  blood;  and  it  was  a  mean- 
ing which  at  last  nearly  excluded  all  the  true  original 
senses  of  the  verb;  limiting  it  mainly  to  the  notion  of  a 
death  by  persecution  for  the  sake  of  Christ.  Thence 
our  English  Avords  martyr  and  martyrdom. 

"But  that  Clement  by  the  use  of  the  word,  in  this 
connection,  meant  to  convey  the  idea  of  Peter's  having 
been  killed  for  the  sake  of  Christ,  is  an  opinion  utterly 
incapable  of  proof,  and  rendered  improbable  by  the 
words  joined  to  it  in  the  passage.  The  sentence  is, 
'Peter  underwent  many  labors,  and  having  THUS  borne 
witness  to  the  gospel  truth,  went  to  the  place  of  glory 
which  he  deserved.'  Now  the  adverb  Hhus''  {ovtgo?) 
5 


50  WAS  PETER  EVER  AT  ROME? 

seems  to  me  most  distinctly  to  show  what  was  the  nature 
of  this  testimony,  and  the  manner  also  in  which  he  bore 
it.  It  i^oints  out  more  plainly  than  any  other  words  could, 
the  fact  that  his  testimony  to  the  truth  of  the  Gospel 
was  borne  in  the  zealous  labors  of  a  devoted  life,  and 
not  by  the  agonies  of  a  bloody  death.  There  is  not  in 
the  whole  context,  nor  in  all  the  writings  of  Clement, 
any  hint  whatever  that  Peter  was  killed  for  the  sake  of 
the  Gospel:  and  we  are  therefore  required  by  every 
sound  rule  of  interpretation  to  stick  to  the  primar}'^ 
sense  of  the  verb  in  this  passage."  Bacon  refers  to 
Suicer's  Thesaurus,  and  to  several  Fathers,  to  substan- 
tiate his  position. 

We  have  the  more  critically  investigated  the  testi- 
mon}'  of  Clement,  as  he  is  the  only  contemporary  of 
Peter  whose  writings  have  come  down  to  us,  and  because 
he  is  claimed  as  a  witness  to  the  fact  of  Peter's  presence 
in  Rome. 

We  have  seen  that  a  cai'eful  examination  of  Clement's 
words  presents  a  damaging  argument  against  the  pre- 
tensions of  the  Roman  Church,  and  goes  far  to  explain 
the  fact  why  the  noble  epistle  of  this  eminent  Apostolic 
Christian  laborer  was  apparenth'  suppressed  for  cen- 
turies in  the  Western  Church.  The  silence  of  Clement, 
like  the  silence  of  Paul,  and  the  entire  New  Testament, 
including  the  Apostle  Peter  himself,  innneasurabl}^  out- 
weighs all  subsequent  traditions  and  fables  with  respect 
to  the  latter's  residence  in  Rome. 

"When  we  come  to  the  very  coupling  which  is  to 
hold  the  long  train  of  the  Papacy  to  its  motive  power, 
we  look  for  a  bolt,  and  we  iind  instead  a  bulrush." 


CHAPTER  IV. 
jfatbere  of  tbe  Second  Century. 

We  have  seen  in  our  previous  examination  of  this 
question  that  neither  Ignatius  nor  Clement,  of  the  first 
century,  alludes  to  any  visit  of  Peter  to  Rome. 

If  the  fact  be  true  that  Peter  was  in  Rome,  and  all  the 
schemes  connected  therewith  by  the  Church  of  Rome 
be  considered;  is  it  not  marvelous  that  Clement,  a 
Bishop  of  Rome  and  writing  from  Rome,  and  Ignatius 
a  Bishop  of  Antioch  and  Avriting  to  Rome,  present  no 
testimony  whatever  bearing  on  the  point  in  question; 
both  writers  living  in  the  first  century. 

If  it  can  also  be  shown  that  in  the  five  additional 
authentic  documents  of  the  century  after  Peter's  death, 
which  alone  have  reached  us,  there  is  a  similar  silence 
on  this  matter,  regarded  by  so  many  as  of  vital  import, 
will  it  not  require  absolute  demonstration  to  establish 
the  Roman  claim? 

"The  authority  of  the  Bishops  of  Rome  is  either  a 
divine  ordinance  to  which  all  Christian  people  are  bound 
to  submit,  if  they  would  not  ino^ir  the  guilt  of  rebellion, 
or  it  is  a  shameless  usurpation,  and  an  intolerable 
tyranny,  which  it  is  our  duty  to  resist."  The  claim 
rests  upon  the  supposed  residence  of  the  Apostle  Peter 
in  Rome — we  are  examining  now  that  question — and 
after  presenting  all  in  Clement  and  Ignatius,  claimed 
as  evidence,  and  finding  it  without  value;  we  shall  in- 
quire whether  Polycarp,   or  Barnabas,  or  Hernias,  or 

51 


•52  WAS  PETER  EVER  AT  ROME? 

Justin  Martyr,  or  the  newly  found  Didache,  all  of  the 
century  following  Peter,  present  any  testimony  to 
establish  the  claim  that  this  Apostle  was  ever  at  Rome. 

POLYCARP. 

PoLYCARP  is  supposed  to  have  been  born  in  the  city 
of  Smyrna,  in  Nero's  reign,  about  the  year  67.  After 
the  death  of  Buculus,  the  Bishop  of  Smyrna,  by  whom 
he  had  been  ordained  deacon,  he  was  selected  to  succeed 
him.  Irenaeus  states  that  Polycarp  "had  been  instructed 
by  the  Apostles  and  had  familiar  intercourse  with  many 
who  had  seen  Christ."  lie  has  left  us  one  letter  to  the 
Church  at  Philippi,  written  about  the  year  108.  Its 
authenticity  has  not  been  disputed.  Le  Moyne  writes 
that  "there  is  not,  perhaps,  any  Avork  extant  that  has 
more  entire  evidence  of  its  being  genuine  than  this." 
Eusebius  says  of  it  that  "it  was  publicly  read  in  the 
churches."  We  can  only  remark  of  this  letter  of  Poly- 
carp exhorting  the  Philippians  to  the  performance  of 
Christian  duties,  that  there  is  no  mention  made  of  Rome, 
or  of  Peter.  This  omission  cannot  be  reconciled  with 
the  existence  of  a  just  claim  of  the  Roman  Church  as 
the  See  of  the  Apostle  Peter. 

Poh^carp  visited  Rome  to  confer  with  Bishop  Ani- 
cetus  as  to  the  time  when  the  festival  of  Easter  should 
be  kept.  The  Roman  Church  observed  the  Feast  on 
the  Sunday  after  the  Jewish  Passover;  the  Asiatics  kept 
it  on  the  third  day  after  the  fourteenth  day  of  the  first 
month.  The  two  bishops  conferred  as  to  the  matter; 
neither  could  persuade  the  other  to  change  his  views. 
Each  held  to  his  own  opinion,  and  after  an  amicable 
discussion  and  the  celebration  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  at 


BARNABAS.  53 

which  the  Bishop  of  Rome  requested  Polycarp  to  preside, 
the  bishops  separated.  Bower  in  his  "Lives  of  the 
Popes"  remarks :  "  St.  Polycarp,  though  well  acquainted 
with  the  doctrine  of  the  Apostles,  was  a  stranger,  it 
seems,  to  that  of  Bellarmine,  Baronius,  etc. — viz.,  that 
the  whole  Catholic  Church  is  bound  to  conform  to  the 
rites,  ceremonies,  and  customs  of  the  Church  of  Rome." 
Vol.  i.  p.  13,  Am.  Ed. 

BARNABAS. 

Whether  the  Epistle  of  Barnabas  was  written  by  the 
companion  of  Paul,  the  associate  of  the  Apostles,  or 
some  other  Christian,  does  not  affect  the  bearing  of  the 
testimony  on  the  matter  M^e  are  considering.  If  written 
by  the  former  it  has  been  largely  inter2:iolated,  like  the 
letters  of  Ignatius,  for  there  are  statements  in  it  which 
could  not  have  been  made  by  an  Apostolic  Avriter.  The 
best  critics  make  the  time  of  its  composition  in  the  reign 
of  Hadrian — the  first  quarter  of  the  second  century.  In 
the  latter  part  of  the  Epistle  there  are  directions  with 
respect  to  the  "  Way  of  Light,"  which  are  a  summary 
of  what  a  Christian  is  to  do  that  he  may  be  happy  for- 
ever; also  the  "Way  of  Darkness"  is  described,  and 
Avhat  kind  of  persons  shall  be  forever  cast  out  of  the 
kingdom  of  heaven. 

No  modern  Roman  Catholic  writer  could  allude  to  such 
a  topic  without  directing  his  readers  to  the  Church  of 
Rome  as  the  "Way  of  Life,"  the  Church  founded  by 
Peter  at  Rome.  As  neither  Rome  nor  Peter  is  ever 
mentioned  by  this  author,  who  wrote  Avithin  fifty  years 
after  the  Apostle's  decease,  the  silence  of  the  Epistle  is 
an  additional  argument  that  the  Petrine  claims  were  not 


54  WAS  PETER  EVER  AT  ROME? 

known  at  that  period.  The  Apostles  and  their  associates 
surely  knew  better  Avbat  was  essential  to  the  faith  than 
any  successor. 

HEEMAS. 

There  is  a  work  written  about  the  same  time  as  the  let- 
ter of  Barnabas,  entitled  "  The  Shepherd  of  Hermas." 
It  is  of  a  much  higher  order  than  that  last  described, 
and  was  regarded  by  some  of  the  early  Christians  as 
inspired,  and  publicly  read  in  the  Eastern  Churches.  It 
is  an  allegorical  work,  written  somewhat  in  the  style  of 
the  "Pilgrim's  Progress."  There  is  intei'nal  evidence 
that  the  book  was  written  in  Italy,  probably  in  Rome. 
In  the  vision  the  writer  is  directed  to  write  two  books, 
and  send  one  to  Clement  and  one  to  Grapte.  "But  thou 
shalt  read  it  in  this  city  with  the  ciders  who  preside 
over  the  Church."  Archbishop  Wake  in  his  edition 
strangely  omitted  the  word  "preside."  We  read  again, 
"I  say  unto  j^ou  who  are  set  over  the  Church  and  love 
the  first  seats;"  elsewhere,  "The  earthly  sjDirit  revealeth 
itself  and  Mill  have  the  first  claim;"  and  again,  "They 
are  such  as  had  some  envy  and  strife  among  themselves 
for  principality  and  dignity." 

The  Avritings  of  Hermas  so  far  from  bearing  any  wit- 
ness to  a  primacy  of  Peter  as  Bishoj)  of  Rome,  make  no 
allusion  to  him,  and  testify  to  the  fact  that  the  Church 
was  then  ruled  by  elders,  and  warns  these  elders  against 
the  sin  of  aspiring  to  precedence,  as  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ  warned  his  Apostles.  The  testimony  of  Hermas 
is,  therefore,  still  more  strongly  against  the  claim  that 
Peter  was  at  Rome,  and  its  bishop. 

Bishop  LiGHTFOOT,  a  high  authority,  confirms  this 
opinion,  Ignatius   and   Polycarp,  i.    399.     "The    next 


JUSTIN  MABTTR.  55 

document  emanating  from  the  Roman  Church  is  '  Tlie 
Shepherd  of  Hernias.'  Here  again  we  are  met  with  a 
singular  phenomenon.  If  we  had  no  other  information, 
we  should  be  at  a  loss  to  say  what  was  the  form  of 
government  when  '  The  Shepherd '  was  written,  .  . 
The  episcopate,  though  doubtless  it  existed  in  some 
form  or  other  in  Rome,  had  not  yet  (it  would  seem) 
assumed  the  same  strong  and  well  defined  monarchical 
character,  with  Avhich  we  are  confronted  in  the  Eastern 
Churches." 

JUSTIN    MARTYR. 

Our  next  witness  is  a  converted  heathen  philosopher 
who  was  born  soon  after  the  death  of  Peter,  and  died 
about  the  year  160.  His  apology  for  Christianity  is 
regarded  as  written  about  the  year  140.  Justin  names 
the  Apostles  a  few  times,  and  alludes  to  Peter,  James, 
and  John  as  having  had  their  names  changed,  but  there 
is  not  the  slightest  trace  in  anything  that  he  had  said 
of  any  distinction  of  power,  or  of  any  primacj^  among 
them.  He  never  even  names  any  Bishop  of  Rome. 
Justin  speaks  of  Simon  Magus,  his  magic,  and  his  deifi- 
cation at  Rome,  but  makes  no  mention  of  Peter's  going 
to  Rome  to  combat  him,  nor  does  any  Father  narrate  this 
fable  till  after  the  year  300. 

Justin  describes  the  worship  of  the  early  Christians  on 
the  Lord's  da}'-,  the  Lord's  Supper,  and  the  presiding 
Presbyters,  Avith  the  Deacons;  but  no  mention  is  made 
even  of  a  third  order  of  the  ministry,  much  less  of  a 
Bishop,  or  Pope,  the  Vice  Regent  of  God  and  successor 
of  Peter.  The  absence  of  such  Avitness,  in  the  works  of 
this  learned  man,  written  at  Rome,  bears  very  strongly 
asrainst  the  force  of  the  Petrine  claim. 


56  WAS  PETER  EVER  AT  ROME? 

THE    DIDACIIE,    OR    TEACHING    OF    THE    APOSTLES. 

We  speak  last  of  this  recently  discovered  Avork,  edited 
by  Bryexxios,  Metropolian  of  Nicomedia,  tliougb  it 
possesses  deeper  interest  and  value  than  those  previously 
mentioned.  It  is  a  discovery  of  inestimable  value,  as  it 
is  the  first  Church  Manual  we  possess,  Avritten,  according 
to  the  best  critics,  at  the  beginning  of  the  second  century, 
and  perhaps  earlier.  "It  contains  a  true  and  graphic 
picture  of  the  faith,  discipline,  and  practice  of  the  Chris- 
tians of  the  second  century." 

Plere  we  would  expect  to  find,  if  anywhere,  a  state- 
ment with  respect  to  the  Apostle  Peter's  claim  to  the 
primacy,  and  his  position  as  Bishop  and  Pope  of  Rome, 
if  Peter  had  been  at  Rome,  and  had  presided  there.  But 
though  the  work  discourses  on  the  ministry',  the  Aj^ostles 
and  other  ministers,  on  baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper 
and  the  duties  of  Christians — there  is  no  mention  of  Peter, 
nor  of  the  Church  of  Rome.  The  subject  is  entireh' 
ignored,  as  of  no  importance.  The  writer  appears  not 
even  to  have  heard  of  such  a  claim  as  Peter's  residence 
and  precedence  in  Rome.  Outside  of  the  Scriptures, 
we  do  not  possess  another  such  interesting  and  authori- 
tative document,  on  this  matter,  as  the  Didache. 

Taken  in  consideration  with  the  utter  silence  on  this 
point  of  Justin,  Hernias,  Barnabas,  and  Polycarp,  the 
above  writings  are,  with  this  precious  document,  the 
sole  authentic  testimonies  preserved  from  the  centur}' 
following  Peter's  death.  Its  abstinence  from  all  allu- 
sion to  the  subject  i;nder  consideration,  seems  to  settle 
conclusively  the  fact,  that  the  Church  of  Christ  was  not 
aware  that  the  Apostle  Peter  had  been  in  Rome,  had 
founded  the  Church  there,  had  given  it  precedence  over 


THE  DTD  ACHE.  51 

other  Cliurches  in  consequence  thereof;  and  whatever 
later  writers  might  state  could  not  give  force  or  efficacy 
to  any  claim  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  which  it  is 
clearly  evident  the  earh'  Christians  had  no  knowledge 
of  for  a  century  after  the  death  of  the  Apostle.  We 
feel  authorized  to  assert  with  Lipsius,  the  great  German 
critic,  "The  Roman-Peter  legend  proves  itself  to  be, 
from  beginning  to  end,  a  fiction,  and  thus  our  critical 
judgment  is  confirmed :     The  feet  of  Peter  never 

TROD    THE  STREETS    OF    ROME."  * 

*  See  Examination  of  Lipsius — Presb.  Quarterly,  April,  1876. 


CHAPTER   V. 
G:e0timoni2  ot  Scripture. 

If  it  were  a  matter  of  great  importance  to  the  Cburch 
of  Christ  to  know  that  the  Apostle  Peter  had  resided  in 
Rome,  and  was  its  Bishop  while  there,  the  AYord  of  God 
would  have  contained  the  narrative,  and  thus  have  settled 
the  fact  beyond  contradiction,  for  all  time. 

The  Holy  Scriptures  contain  the  names  of  a  number  of 
Christian  workers  in  Rome.  Peter's  name  is  not  among 
them.  In  our  previous  examination  we  have  presented 
the  writings  of  all  the  authors  who  wrote  during  the 
century  after  Peter's  death,  whose  works  have  reached 
us,  and  find  that  in  them,  as  also  in  the  Didache,  a  work 
of  the  same  period,  nothing  is  said  of  a  visit  of  Peter  to 
the  Imperial  City.  Clement,  Ignatius,  Barnabas,  Poly- 
carp,  Hennas,  and  Justin  are  silent  on  this  topic. 

THE    TEADITIOXAL    TIME    OF    PETER's    RESIDENCE. 

The  Roman  doctrine  of  the  time  of  Peter's  visit  to 
Rome,  and  the  length  of  his  sojourn  there,  are  based  on 
the  statement  of  Eusebius,  a.  d.  340,  and  that  of  Jerome, 
transcribed  from  that  of  Eusebius.  Binius,  Labbeus, 
Petavius,  Bede,  Baronius,  and  Valesius  agree  with 
the  above  Fathers,  in  sending  Peter  to  Rome  in  the  reign 
of  the  Emj^eror  Claudius.  This  is  now  the  universally 
accepted  teaching  in  the  Church  of  Rome.  We  need 
only  to  present  the  language  of  the  latest  extended 
Church  history,  that  of  the  Abbe  Darras,  which  bears 

58 


rnrE  of  peters  residence.  59 

tlie  Imprimatur  of  Po])e  PiusIX.,  Arcbbisho2)s  McClos- 
key,  Spalding,  and  Purcell.  In  vol.  i.,  page  42,  we  read 
"The  pontificate  of  St.  Peter  lasted  thirty-three  years, 
of  which  twenty-five  Avere  passed  in  Rome."  Having 
tlie  dictum  of  their  infallible  Pope,  Romanists  are 
bound  henceforth  to  adhere  to  this  declaration. 

In  view  of  claimed  infallibility,  the  discrepancy  among 
tlie  Papal  writers  is  remarkable.  The  Bullarium  states 
Peter  was  in  Rome  twenty-four  years,  three  months,  and 
twelve  days;  Eusebius,  in  the  Armenian  version  of  his 
Chronicon,  twenty  years;  in  the  Latin,  twenty-five; 
Jerome,  twenty-four;  Baronius,  twenty -five;  Herbst, 
not  beyond  a  year;  Valesius  Pagi,  Baluze,  Hug,  Klee, 
during  the  later  years  of  Nero's  reign.  The  Dominican 
Fathers,  in  their  Bibliotheque  Sacree,  dismiss  the  sub- 
ject very  brieflj',  stating:  "  What  is  certain  is  that  Peter 
did  not  ffo  to  Rome  until  the  reig-n  of  Nero." 

TuRRETiN,  Op.,  iii.  p.  144,  remarks:  "Some  think  that 
Peter  came  to  Rome  in  the  second  year  of  Claudius,  as 
Eusebius  and  Jerome.  Others  in  his  fourth  year,  as 
Thomas,  Beda,  and  Fasciculus  Temporum;  others  in 
Anno  43,  as  the  Passionale  de  Vitis  Sanctorum;  others 
that  he  remained  there  twenty-three  years,  and  others 
twenty-five  years.  The  common  opinion  which  Baro- 
nius and  Bellarmine  adopted  is,  that  Peter  after  the 
death  of  our  Lord  remained  in  Judea  five  years,  whence, 
A.  D.  30,  he  came  to  Antioch,  accepted  the  Episcopate, 
whence  he  departed  and  came  to  Rome  after  seven 
years,  when  he  established  the  Church,  and  presided. 

"In  the  meantime  it  happened  that  in  the  year  51,  by 
the  edict  of  Claudius,  Peter  with  the  rest  of  the  Jews 
was  expelled  from  Rome,  and  took  occasion  to  come  to 
the  Council  at  Jerusalem,  held  that  year.     Then  on  the 


60  ir.4.S^  PETER  EVER  AT  HOME f 

death  of  Claudius,  he  returned  to  Rome,  where  he  pre- 
sided till  his  death  by  niartyi'dom." 

Meyee,  an  accurate  and  judicious  writer,  Intro.  Ejiis. 
Rom.  p.  20,  says:  "We  maj'  add  that  our  Epistle — since 
Peter  cannot  have  labored  in  Rome  before  it  Avas 
written — is  a  fact  destructive  of  the  historical  basis  of 
the  Papacy,  in  so  far  as  the  latter  is  made  to  rest  on  the 
founding  of  the  Roman  Church  and  the  exercise  of  the 
Episcopate  by  that  Apostle. 

''  For  Paul,  the  writing  of  such  a  didactic  Epistle  to  a 
Church  of  which  he  knew  Peter  to  be  the  founder  and 
bishop,  would  have  been,  according  to  the  principle  of 
his  Apostolic  independence,  impossible  in  consistency." 

Meyer  writes  elsewhere  of  "the  tradition  of  the 
Roman  Church  having  been  founded  by  Peter;  a  view 
disputed  even  by  Catholic  theologians  like  Hug,  Feil- 
moser,  Klee,  Ellendorf,  Maier,  and  Stengel."  Duff, 
Early  Church,  p.  64,  writes:  "The  tradition,  which 
cannot  be  traced  back  further  than  the  end  of  the  fourth 
century  (Jerome's  version  of  Eusebius),  is  not  only 
unsupported  by  satisfactorj^  evidence,  as  maj'  be  said 
of  the  legends  given  above,  and  even  of  the  position  that 
Peter  was  ever  at  Rome  at  all;  but  with  the  Scripture 
data  we  have  in  our  hand,  it  is  so  incredible  that  some 
Roman  Catholic  writers  have  abandoned  it;  and  have 
reduced  it  twenty-five  to  one.  The  truth  is  we  know 
nothing  with  certainty  of  Peter,  but  what  we  learn  from 
the  New  Testament  itself." 

But  what  do  we  learn  from  Scripture  as  to  Peter's 
residence  in  Rome?  Edgar,  Var.  Popery,  p.  44,  wittil}^ 
remarks:  "A  single  hint  is  not  afforded  by  Peter  him- 
self nor  b}"  his  inspired  companions,  Luke,  James,  Jude, 
Paul,  and  John.     Pope  Peter,  in  his  epistolary  produc- 


TIME  OF  PETERS  RESIDENCE.  6 1 

tious,  mentions  nothing  of  bis  Roman  residency,  epis- 
copacy, or  supreniac3%  Paul  Avrote  a  letter  to  the 
Romans,  and  from  the  Roman  city  addressed  the  Gala- 
tians,  Ephesians,  Philippians,  Colossians,  Timothy,  and 
Philemon.  lie  sent  salutations  to  various  Roman 
friends,  such  as  Priscilla,  Aquila,  Epenetus,  Mary,  An- 
dronicus,  Junia,  and  Amplias;  but  forgets  Simon,  the 
supposed  Roman  hierarch.  ^Vriting  from  Rome  to  the 
Colossians,  he  mentions  Tychicus,  Onesimus,  Aristar- 
chus,  Marcus,  Justus,  Epaphras,  Luke,  and  Demas,  who 
had  afforded  him  consolation;  but  strange  to  tell,  neg- 
lects the  sovereign  pontiff!  Addressing  Timothy  from 
the  Roman  city,  Paul  of  Tarsus  remembers  Eubulus, 
Pudens,  Linus,  and  Claudia,  but  overlooks  the  Roman 
bishop!  No  man,  except  Luke,  stood  with  Paul  at  his 
tii'st  answer,  or  at  the  nearer  approach  of  dissolution. 
Luke  also  is  silent  on  this  theme.  John,  who  published 
his  Gospel  after  the  other  Evangelists,  and  his  Revela- 
tion at  the  close  of  the  first  centurj^,  maintains,  on  this 
agitated  subject,  a  provoking  silence." 

TuRRETix,  Op.  iii.  p.  147,  on  the  singular  neglect  of 
Peter  to  welcome  Paul  on  his  arrival  in  the  Imperial 
City,  if  he  were  present  there,  says:  "When  Paul  came 
to  Rome,  the  brethren  hastened  to  meet  him  at  the 
Appii  Forum;  if  Peter  had  been  there,  he  surely  would 
have  accompanied  them,  but  his  name  is  not  mentioned. 

"Afterward,  on  the  third  day,  Paul  assembles  the 
Chief  Jews.  These,  who  certainly  were  not  Christians, 
desired  to  hear  the  sentiments  of  Paul.  And  if  Peter 
was  in  Rome,  and  its  bishop,  Avould  not  these  have 
heard  concerning  the  Christians  from  him,  especiall}^ 
if  he  were  their  Apostle? 

"In  vain  does  Bellarmine  assert  that  Peter  was  at  that 


62  WAS  PETER  EVER  AT  ROME? 

time  absent.  Who  can  believe  that  Peter  Avould  have 
been  absent  so  long  from  his  Church,  where  he  could  be 
in  safety?  If  he  was  bishop  of  that  Church,  where  ought 
he  to  have  been,  rather  than  at  Rome?  How  otherwise 
could  he  escape  the  charge  of  idleness  and  neglect  of 
duty?" 

J.  A.  Wylie,  The  Papacy,  234,  writes:  "We  have 
eight  instances  of  Paul  communicating  with  Rome — two 
letters  to,  and  six  from  that  city — during  Peter's  alleged 
Episcopate,  and  yet  not  the  slightest  allusion  to  Peter 
occurs  in  any  of  these  letters.  This  is  wholly  inexpli- 
cable on  the  supposition  that  Peter  was  in  Rome." 

Calvin  writes,  Tracts,  iii.  272:  "Paul  Avrites  various 
Epistles  from  prison;  he  mentions  the  names  of  certain 
persons  of  no  mean  rank;  there  is  no  jilace  for  Peter 
among  them.  If  he  were  there,  such  silence  would  be  a 
marked  insult. 

"Then,  when  he  complains  that  at  his  first  defense 
no  man  stood  by  him,  would  he  not  affix  the  stigna  of 
extreme  perfidy  on  Peter,  if  he  were  then  the  pastor  of 
the  city?" 

WHAT    THE    SCRIPTURE    SAYS. 

The  Scripture  informs  us  that  Jerusalem  was  the  resi- 
dence of  Peter.  It  is  said  (Acts  viii.  1)  that,  "At 
that  time"  (the  stoning  of  Stephen,  A.  d.  .34),  there  was 
a  great  persecution  of  the  Church  which  was  at  Jeru- 
salem. And  they  were  all  scattered  abroad  throughout 
the  regions  of  Judea  and  Samaria  except  the  Apostles." 
Chapter  viii.  14,  avc  read  of  Peter  and  John  being  sent 
to  Samaria.  Here  Peter  met  Simon  Magus.  In  the  9th 
chapter,  Peter's  visitation  at  Lydda  and  Joppa  is  nar- 
rated.    In  the  10th  chapter,  at  Ca^sarea,  he  admits  Corne- 


WHAT  THE  SCRIPTURE  SAYS.  63 

lius  to  the  Church  by  baptism.  He  returned  to  Jerusa- 
lem, and  was  present  at  the  Council,  a.  d.  52.  It  is 
obvious  that  he  could  not  have  gone  very  far  froni  Jeru- 
salem on  journeys,  or  that,  if  he  had  gone  to  the  Imperial 
Capital,  no  mention  could  have  been  made  of  it. 

Peter  was,  therefore,  not  at  Rome  "when  the  Council 
sat  in  Jerusalem,  a.  d.  52.  Gal.  i.  8,  we  read  that 
Paul  went  to  Jerusalem  to  see  Peter,  three  years  after 
his  conversion,  a.  d.  38,  and  found  him  there.  Four- 
teen years  after  (Gal.  ii.  1),  he  goes  again  to  Jerusalem, 
and  there  meets  Peter.  If,  according  to  Pope  Pius  IX., 
and  the  Roman  Church,  Peter  was  then  at  Rome,  why 
did  not  Paul  seek  him  there?  According  to  their  state- 
ment, he  would  have  been  there  six  to  eight  years. 
This,  we  have  seen,  the  Scriptures  plainly  contradict. 

On  Peter's  alleged  journey  to  Rome  after  his  escape 
from  Herod  (Acts.  xii.  17)  J.  Addison  Alexander 
remarks:  "That  Peter  went  to  Rome  is  a  'conjecture' 
in  order  to  sustain  the  tradition  that  Peter  was  for  many 
years  the  bishop  of  the  Church  there,  a  tradition  incon- 
sistent with  the  absolute  silence  of  Paul  respecting  him, 
in  writing  to  and  from  Rome." 

Baumgaeten  on  the  same  points,  Apos.  Hist.,  i.  325, 
says:  "The  opinion  of  the  Romanists,  who  look  upon 
Rome  as  the  unnamed  locality  to  Avhich  Peter  betook 
himself,  is  the  very  widest  from  the  truth." 

TESTIMONY    OF    ELLENDORF. 

We  now  present  the  criticism  of  a  learned  Roman 
Catholic  professor  in  Berlin, who  has  exhaustivelj'^  treated 
of  Peter's  claimed  visit  to  Rome,  and  finds  it  to  be  a 
fable.  His  treatise  may  be  found  in  the  Bibliotheca 
Sacra,  July,    1858,  January,  1859.     He  writes,  p.  582: 


64  WAS  PETER  EVER  AT  ROME? 

"In  A.  D.  45,  Peter  had  not  yet  come  to  Antiocb,  to 
say  nothing  of  his  coming  to  Rome;  he  had  not  even 
crossed  the  boundaries  of  Palestine.  The  opinion,  then, 
that  Peter  went  to  Rome  in  the  second  year  of  Claudius, 
A.  J).  42,  is  proved  to  be  wholly  false."  That  he  Avas 
Bishop  of  Antioch,  as  the  Pope  and  others  claim, 
Ellendorf  emphatically  denies.  After  examining  all 
authorities  presented,  he  writes,  p.  590:  "We  see  what 
is  the  weight  of  these  testimonies — just  nothing  at  all: 
they  are  from  the  fifth,  sixth,  and  seventh  centuries. 
Peter's  bishopric  at  Antioch  is  shown  to  be,  in  all  re- 
spects, a  fable." 

In  p.  576  he  says:  "If  Paul's  conversion  occurred, 
as  we  have  proved  above,  in  a.  u.  38  or  39,  then  the 
Council  of  Jerusalem  is  to  be  placed  in  a.  d.  52  or  53. 
In  this  year,  therefore,  Peter  had  not  gone  to  Rome.  All 
that  is  maintained  of  the  journey  to  Rome  is  not  above 
a  mere  story  or  fiction,  at  the  bottom  of  which  there  lies 
nothing  solid.  .  .  Peter  had  not  come  to  Rome  in  the 
beginning  of  the  reign  of  Nero,  that  is  in  a.  d.  54  and 
55;  Ave  Avill  uoav  prove  that  he  had  not  come  there  uj)  to 
A.  D.   64." 

Analyzing  Paul's  Epistles  and  the  book  of  Acts  mi- 
nutely, Ellendorf  arrives  at  the  conclusion  (p.  605) : 
"We  must  have  lost  all  common  sense  and  regard  for 
truth  if  Ave  maintain,  under  these  circumstances,  that 
Peter  and  his  disciples  were  with  Paul  at  Rome  in  a.  d, 
61-63,  Avhen  he  Avrote  these  Epistles. 

"While  Paul  developed  such  a  widesjiread  and  deeper 
penetrating  activity  at  Rome;  while  there  he  concen- 
trated the  action  of  almost  the  Avhole  body  of  the 
important  intellects  of  the  Church,  or  pointed  out  to 
them    abroad   the  circle    of  operation;    and    while   he 


ELLENBORVS  ADMISSION.  65 

formed,  organized,  founded,  and  governed  the  C'hurcli  at 
Rome,  and  from  it  lending  form  and  aid,  be  made  his 
attacks  on  the  East  and  West,  nothing  is  jyerceiued  of 
Peter,  not  a  loord  is  breathed  of  his  abode  at  Home,  or 
of  his  activity  there.  The  stale  conversion  of  the  name 
of  Babylon  into  Rome  (1  Peter  v.  13),  is  the  only 
argument  by  Avhich  they  venture  to  prove  Peter's 
abode  at  Rome,  his  Episcopate,  and  his  Popedom  from 
the  Holy  Scriptures.  It  would  not  pay  for  the  trouble 
to  waste  a  word  on  it." 

Page  620:  "Finally,  we  have  proved  from  the  above- 
mentioned  authorities  that  not  the  slightest  share  can  be 
shoion  for  Peter  in  the  founding  of  the  Church  at  Romej 
and  much  more  that  this  Avas  exclusively  owing  to  Paul 
and  his  disciples.  The  mode  and  manner  of  conducting 
this  proof  has  been  twofold,  2^ositive  and  negative.  In 
the  former  we  proved  that  Peter  was  elsewhere  at  the 
time  in  which  he  is  placed  at  Rome;  in  the  latter,  that 
the  silence  of  the  authorities  renders  that  residence  of 
Peter  at  Rome  wholly  inadmissible." 

We  have  preferred  to  present  the  argument  at  the 
hands  of  a  candid,  cultured  Roman  Catholic  scholar,  in- 
asmuch as  it  comes  with  twofold  force  from  one  who 
was  obliged  to  disregard  the  doctrine  of  his  powerful 
Communion  with  its  infallible  head,  while  presenting 
historical  truths. 

ellendorf's  admission. 

"We  cannot  find  fault  with  a  Protestant,"  writes 
Ellendorf,  "when,  relying  on  the  proofs  which  the  Holy 
Scriptures  and  the  oldest  Fathers,  Clemens  of  Rome  and 
Justin,  present,  he  holds  the  abode  of  Peter  at  Rome, 
and  all  connected  with  it,  for  a  tale  drawn   from  the 


66  WAS  PETER  EVER  AT  ROME? 

Apocrypha.  This  much  is  certain,  that  no  one  of  the 
arguments  which  can  be  opposed  to  him  has  so  much 
weight  that  lie  is  morally  bound  to  acknowledge  the 
story  as  truth.  Peter''s  abode  at  Home  can  never  he 
proved;  neither,  therefore,  can  the  Primacy  of  the 
Romish  Church,  based  on  it,  be  so." 

BouziQUE,  a  French  barrister  and  statesman,  in  his 
Historj^  of  Christianity,  i.  362,  briefly  sums  up  a  similar 
examination  thus:  "The  sojourn  of  Peter  in  Rome,  and 
his  journey  through  Asia  Minor,  Greece,  and  Italy  can 
be  reconciled  neither  with  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  nor 
Avith  the  Epistles  of  Peter  and  Paul;  nor  can  they  be 
reconciled  with  the  absolute  silence  of  the  flrst  century 
and  of  the  ■  Apostolic  times.  The  journeys  and  the 
preaching  of  Peter  in  those  divers  lands  Avould  have 
been  facts  too  considerable  in  the  history  of  the  Church 
for  Paul  or  Luke,  or  any  other  waiter  of  that  time,  not 
to  have  spoken  of  them  directly  or  indirectly.  That 
silence,  and  the  different  facts  supplied  by  the  Acts,  the 
Epistles,  and  the  other  parts  of  the  New  Testament, 
ofl^er  then  an  insurmountable  obstacle  for  every  unpreju- 
diced mind." 

Marsilius  of  Padua,  jurist  and  counselor  to  the 
Emperor  Lewas  of  Bavaria,  and  under  him,  Papal  Vicar 
at  Rome,  and  at  one  time  rector  of  the  University  of 
Paris;  in  his  Defensor  Pacis,  written  1322,  states  that 
he  finds  no  proof  in  Scripture  that  St.  Peter  was  Bishop 
of  Rome,  or  ever  was  in  Rome. 

"If  this  were  so,  how  surprising  it  is,"  he  remarks, 
"that  St.  Paul,  in  rebuking  the  Jews  in  Rome  for  their 
want  of  faith,  makes  no  allusion  to  the  preaching  there 
of  St.  Peter;  and  though  he  resided  in  Rome  two  years 
does  he  appear  to  have  met  him;  nor  does  the  historian 


ELLENDORF'8  ADMISSION.  67 

of  the  Church  state  that  Peter  was  in  the  city."  The 
original  language  may  be  seen  in  Neander  (Church 
History,  vol.  ix.  p.  45,  Bohn's  edition). 

Farrar  in  his  "Early  Days  of  Christianity,"  p.  77, 
refers  to  Dollixgeb,  Waterwokth,  and  Allxatt, 
additional  Roman  Catholic  authorities,  as  holding  that 
"if  Peter  was  ever  at  Rome  at  all,  it  could  only  have 
been  very  briefly  before  his  martyrdom."  Waterworth, 
Engl,  and  Rome,  ii;  Allnatt,  Cathedra  Petri,  p.  114. 

The  argument  of  these  Roman  Catholic  investigators, 
combined  with  that  of  this  acute  French  lawyer  and 
the  erudite  scholars  which  have  been  presented,  we  may 
safely  say,  leaves  no  ground  for  an  opponent  to  stand 
upon. 

We  have  the  more  thoroughly  treated  this  point 
because,  if  the  visit  of  Peter  to  Rome  cannot  rest  ujion 
any  testimony  of  Scripture,  but  simply  on  tradition  and 
inference,  it  is  taken  out  of  the  domain  of  faith  and 
conscience;  and  clearly  has  no  connection  with  the  sal- 
vation of  the  human  soul,  as  is  asserted  by  the  Roman 
Catholic  Church.  Our  Heavenly  Father  will  not  require 
us  to  believe  any  doctrine  which  we  cannot  find  plainly 
set  forth  in  His  revealed  Word,  the  infallible  standard 
and  constitution  of  His  Church;  of  whose  existence  and 
authority  we  have  satisfactory  proof  in  that  Word 
alone. 

As  we  have  seen,  Scripture,  thus  far,  is  against  the 
Petrine  claim.  It  remains  to  consider  w^here  was 
Babylon,  where  Peter  wrote  his  first  Epistle? 


CHAPTER  VI. 
TlClas  tbc  JSab^lon  ot  peter,  IRome  ? 

In  the  course  of  our  examination  of  this  question,  we 
have  seen  that  in  the  New  Testament,  and  in  the  writ- 
ings of  earl}^  Christian  authors  who  lived  in  the  first 
century  after  Peter's  death,  whose  works  have  reached 
us,  thei'e  is  nothing  to  be  found  to  show  that  this  Apos- 
tle was  ever  in  or  near  Rome. 

When  the  scheme  and  claims  which  rest  upon  the 
residence  and  Episcopate  of  Peter  in  Rome,  are  consid- 
ered, what  has  already  been  established  w^ould  reason- 
ably appear  to  be  enough  to  decide  the  question  against 
the  Papacy. 

In  connection  with  the  Scripture  argument  it  remains, 
however,  that  we  notice  the  controversy  with  respect  to 
Babylon,  where  the  Apostle  wrote  his  First  Epistle. 

In  chapter  v.  verse  13,  1st  Epistle,  the  Apostle  writes: 
"  The  Church  which  is  at  Babylon,  elected  together 
with  3'ou,  saluteth  you;  and  so  doth  Marcus  my  son." 

Babylon,  argue  many  writers,  is  Rome  ;  for  so  the 
Apostle  John  designates  the  Imperial  City  in  his  Reve- 
lation ;  hence  Peter  wrote  his  Epistle  there. 

We  have  seen  that  Professor  EUendorf,  a  Roman 
Catholic,  alludes  to  this  view,  but  deems  it  not  worthy 
of  notice,  remarking  "  The  stale  conversion  of  the  name 
of  Babylon  into  Rome  (1  Peter  v.  13)  is  the  only  argu- 
ment by  which  they  venture  to  prove  Peter's  abode  at 


WAS  THE  BABYLON   OF  PETER.   ROME?  69 

Rome,  liis  Episcopate  and  liis  Popedom,  from  the  Holy 
Scriptures." 

"It  would  not  pay  for  the  trouble  to  waste  a  word  on 
it."  (p.  608.)  Simon,  in  his  work  on  the  Mission  and 
Martyrdom  of  St.  Peter,  for  the  preparation  of  whicli 
work  he  spent  nine  months  in  the  British  Museum  Library 
in  London,  remarks  on  this  point  :  "  Father  Calraet  men- 
tions several  members  of  his  Church  as  having  aban- 
doned this  interpretation  of  the  carnal-minded  Jews. 
*  Some  [Roman]  Catholic  writers,'  says  he  ;  *  for  in- 
stance, Peter  de  Marca,  John  Baptist  Mantuan,  Michael 
de  Ceza,  Marsile  de  Padua,  John  Aventin,  John  Leland, 
Charles  du  Moulin,  and  perhaps  some  others,  have 
expressed  their  misgivings  as  to  the  truth  of  this  inter- 
pretation.' "  (Calmet's  Com.,  Prelim.  Diss.,  on  1  Peter.) 
But  it  is  not  misgivings  that  they  express,  it  is  unquali- 
fied denial,  as  anyone  may  see  by  reference  to  their 
works.  For  instance  :  "  St.  Peter  went  to  Antioch," 
says  Peter  de  Marca,  Archbishop  of  Paris,  a  writer  of 
extreme  celebrity  and  favor  in  the  Roman  Church,  "  and 
from  there  to  Babylon,  where  the  hereditary  Patriarch 
of  the  first  dispersion  of  the  Jews  resided.  When 
established  in  that  city  he  wrote  his  First  Epistle,  as  is 
clear  from  the  words,  '  the  Church  at  Babylon  salutes 
you.'  For  although  the  ancients  supposed  Peter  to  have 
here  meant  Rome,  Scaliger  can  be  shown  to  be  right 
when  he  says  that  this  letter  was  written  from  Babylon 
itself  to  those  dispersed  Jews  whose  provincial  syna- 
gogues depended  upon  the  Patriarch  of  Babylon." 
(De  Marca  de  Concordia  Sacerdotii  et  Imperii,  lib.  vi. 
c.  1.)  "It  is  not  misgivings,  then,  that  these  writers 
have  expressed." — Simon,  p.  189,  190. 

Father  Dupix  writes,  i.  348,  Lond.  ed.,  171.3  :  "The 


70  WAS  PETER  EVEIt  AT  ROMEf 

First  Epistle  of  Peter  is  dated  .it  Babj'loii.  Man}'  of  the 
ancients  have  understood  tliat  name  to  signify  Rome  ; 
but  no  reason  appears  tliat  couhl  prevail  with  St.  Peter 
to  change  the  name  of  Rome  into  that  of  Babylon. 
How  could  those  to  whom  he  wrote  understand  that 
Babylon  was  Rome  ? 

"  We  cannot  precisely  assign  the  time  it  was  written, 
but  we  may  consider  that  it  was  written  at  Bab3don, 
A.  D.  65." — Prelim.  Diss.,  sec.  4. 

The  learned  Hug,  Professor  at  Freiburg,  in  his  Intro- 
duction, and  Erasmus,  both  Roman  Catholics,  take  the 
same  view.  "Why,"  says  Erasmus,  "is  the  Apostle 
here  supposed  to  put  Babylon  enigmatically  for  Rome  ? 
Because  idols  were  worshiped  in  Rome  ?  That  was  done 
everywhere.  That  he  might  not  reveal  his  own  where- 
about ?  Whence  this  so  great  timidity  in  him  ?  " 

De  CoRMEJfiN,  another  Romanist,  writes  :  "  The 
First  Epistle  of  St.  Peter  is  dated  from  Babylon,  which 
has  led  some  visionary  to  declare  that  he  gave  this  name 
to  the  capital  of  the  empire." — Hist,  of  Popes,  p.  17. 

We  might  properly  regard  this  question  as  settled  by 
these  Roman  Catholic  authors,  De  Marca,  Erasmus,  Hug, 
De  Cormenin,  Ellendorf,  and  others,  in  favor  of  the 
obvious  and  natural  interpretation  ;  but  inasmuch  as 
learned  Protestants  have  held  to  the  mj'stical  interpre- 
tation that  Babylon  means  Rome,  and  also  to  another 
view  ;  the  opinions  of  the  most  learned  scholars,  gener- 
ally, on  this  interesting  topic  will  be  presented. 

BABYLON    IS    KOME. 

The  learned  Dr.  McKnight,  in  his  Diss.  sec.  v.  Pref. 
to  St.  Peter,  writes  :  "  Whitby,  Grotius,  and  all  the 
learned  of  the  Romish  communion  are  of  opinion  that 


BABYLON   WAS  IN  EGYPT.  VI 

I»y  Babylon  Peter  figuratively  meant  Rome,  called 
Babylon  by  Jolin  likewise.  (Rev.  xvii.,  xviii.)  And 
their  opinion  is  confirmed  by  the  general  testimony  of 
antiquity,  which,  as  Lardner  states,  is  of  no  small  weight." 
These  are  strong  Protestant  names,  and  to  their  side 
may  be  added  those  of  Bede,  Hales,  Cave,  Hammond, 
Tomline,  Miltier,  Wells,  Buckley,  Home,  Cook,  Farrar, 
Ellicott,  Seabury,  Sainsoii,  Schaff,  Fry,  Doyly  and  Mant, 
Coglan,  A.  I.  Mason,  Bishops  Hinds  and  W.  Alexander, 
Poole,  T.  Jones,  Townsend,  Lundy,  Quarry,  Cumming, 
Salmon,  Maclaren,  Rees'  Encyclopedia.  Of  Continental 
scholars,  Luther,  Hoffman,  Hengstenberg,  Cludius, 
Schott,  Thiersch,  Wiesenger,  Windishman,  Myns'ter, 
Renan,  Hitzig,  Godet,  Valckn,  Ewald,  Est,  Hilgenfield, 
Weisacker,  Mangold,  Deitlein,  Sieffert,  Olsl'.ausen. 

BABYLON    WAS    IX     EGYPT. 

Another  opinion  has  been  held  by  some  learned  men 
that  Babylon  Avas  an  Egyptian  city  where  Peter  resided. 
Such  was  the  opinion  of  Fulke,  Pearon,  Mill,  Greswell, 
Leclerc,  Calov,  Pott,  Burton,  Bertram,  Wolf,  Wall, 
Vitringa,  Fabric,  and  Trevor, 

"  This  Babylon  was  a  town  of  considerable  importance 
near  Heliopolis,  mentioned  by  Strabo  and  Ptolemy. 
Josephus  reports  that  the  Jews  afterward  built  a  temple 
there.  We  may  thence  conclude  that  they  Avere  already 
there  in  considerable  numbers.  And  as  Mark,  who  was 
generally  in  attendance  on  Peter,  is  supposed  to  haA'e 
planted  the  Church  of  Alexandria,  it  is  not  improbable 
that  Peter  visited  Egypt  and  may,  therefore,  have  dated 
his  First  Epistle  from  Babj'lon  near  Heliopolis."  This 
view  gives  increased  interest  to  the  Cliurch  of  Alexan- 
dria. 


'-  WAS  PETER  EVER  AT  ROMEf 

Canon  Trevor,  in  his  work  on  Rome,  p.  62, 
regards  this  view  favorably.  He  Avrites  :  "  Peter  was 
at  tills  time  probably  at  Babylon,  the  place  from  which 
his  Epistle  is  dated  ;  and  though  Eusebius,  with  most 
of  the  Fathers  in  reference  to  the  tradition,  interpreted 
this  word  as  a  mj^stic  name  for  Rome,  this  interpreta- 
tion is  now  universally  exploded.  The  visions  of  the 
Apocalypse  which,  however,  had  not  then  been  revealed, 
do  indeed  call  Rome  by  this  name.  AVith  the  date  of  a 
letter  must,  in  all  i-eason,  be  the  actual  name  of  the 
place.  This  Avas  either  the  well-known  city  on  the 
Eui^hrates  or,  more  probably,  Babylon  on  the  Nile. 
These  were  the  two  largest  seats  of  Jewish  population 
out  of  Palestine,  and,  therefore,  as  appropriate  to  Petei"'s 
mission  as  Rome,  the  capital  of  the  world,  was  to  St. 
Paul."     He  refers  to  his  work  on  Egypt,  p.  115. 

"  The  only  existing  Babylon  as  a  city  was  that  of 
Egypt.  It  is  not  probable,  though  some  of  the  ancients 
so  understood  it,  that  Peter  wrote  from  Rome,  disguis- 
ing the  place  under  the  name  of  Babylon.  Egypt, 
according  to  the  testimony  of  Church  History,  was  the 
Province  of  St.  Mark's  missionary  labors." — Chester 
and  JoxEs,  N.  Test.  Illust.,  1,  108. 

Murray,  in  his  Handbook  of  Egypt,  relates  an  inter- 
view with  the  Patriarch  of  Alexandria,  in  which  the 
latter  says,  "  there  is  no  tradition  in  the  Coptic  Church 
that  Peter  ever  visited  Egypt." 

"  The  view  that  by  Babylon  is  meant  Egypt,  has 
nothing  to  commend  it,  the  less  so  that  this  Babj'lon 
was  simply  a  military  garrison." — Meyer  on  1  Peter. 

"A  most  unnatural  interpretation." — Neander,  Hist. 
Plant.  Ch.  i.  373. 

In  Hertzog's  Encyc.  we  read  :  "There  was  another 


BABYLON  WA^  IN  EGYPT.  73 

Babylon  in  Egypt,  founded  by  Babylonians,  wlio  settled 
along  the  Nile  after  the  Persian  invasions,  but  it  is 
nowhere  alluded  to  in  the  Bible.  1  Peter  v.  13  refers  to 
ancient  Babylon,  a  portion  of  whose  ruins  was  occupied 
by  Jews." — Art.  Babel. 

Dr.  T.  L.  CuYLER,  in  his  "  Travels  From  the  Nile  to 
Norwa}',"  writes,  p.  TSl:  '*  From  the  Museum  we  drove 
to  that  wonderful  region  of  antiquity,  '  Old  Cairo,' 
which  lies  three  miles  from  the  present  city.  It  was 
built  as  an  Arab  city  right  after  Mahomet's  death  ;  but 
even  then  an  old  Roman  town  stood  there,  part  of 
which  was  called  '  Babylon.'  It  seems  quite  probable 
that  the  Apostle  Peter  Avrote  his  Epistle  in  that  ancient 
Roman  town,  or  in  a  part  settled  by  a  colony  from  the 
Persian  Babylon.  We  rode  through  the  spot  where  this 
Babylon  stood,  and  gazed  with  awe  upon  the  solid 
Roman  bastions  which  have  withstood  both  the  sieges 
of  the  Caliph  Omar  and  of  time  itself.  Inside  of  these 
walls,  oh,  what  delicious  oddities  of  antiquity  !  " 

That  by  Babylon,  Jerusalem  was  intended  by  tlie 
Apostle,  was  the  opinion  of  Capellus,  Spanheim,  Har- 
douin,  and  Semler. 


CHAPTER  VII. 
©rlgin  of  tbe  Storg:  asabglon  meant  TRomc. 

It  is  interesting  to  inquire  how  the  opinion  arose  that 
b\'  Babylon  the  Apostle  Peter  meant  Rome. 

Papias,  Bishop  of  Hierapolis,  who  died  a.  d.  155,  is 
charged  with  the  origin  of  the  stor3\ 

Professor  Whittaker  of  Oxford,  whom  Bellavmine 
styles  "tlie  most  learned  heretic  he  had  ever  read," 
Disp.  p.  G64,  makes  this  charge  and  remarks  :  "Papias 
was  the  father  and  master  of  tradition.  Eusebins  says 
he  wrote  many  things  from  unwritten  traditions,  but 
they  are  full  of  commentititious  fables.  He  wrote,  as 
Ensebius  tells  us,  five  books  concerning  the  Lord's  dis- 
courses, but  these,  through  the  goodness  of  God,  are 
lost." 

Bishop  Bull,  Vindi.  Ch.  England,  p.  42,  writes  : 
"  Some  very  learned  men  have  observed  that  the  above 
tradition  of  St.  Peter's  voyage  to  Rome  was  first  de- 
rived from  Papias,  an  author  indeed  ver}'  ancient,  but 
also  very  credulous  and  of  mean  judgment." 

Charles  Elliot,  on  Romanism,  ii.  222,  writes : 
"Because  Papias  had  among  his  traditions  strange  and 
novel  parables  and  doctrines  concerning  our  Saviour,  and 
other  things  more  fabulous,  and  that  he  fell  into  these 
errors  chiefly  by  his  ignorance  and  misunderstanding  of 
Scripture,  yet  he  is  the  principal  witness  that  the  Church 
of  Rome  has  to  prove  that  Peter  was  at  Rome.  They 
have  no  other  place  in  Scripture  to  favor  their  interpre- 

74 


OBIGIX  OF  THE  STORY:  BABYLON  MEANT  ROME.  75 

tation,  and  only  Papias  for  that.  For  all  the  other 
ecclesiastical  historians  do  nothing  more  than  copy  the 
error  of  Papias.  Siicli  is  the  only  and  the  best  ground 
that  Rome  has  to  sliow  that  Peter  ever  was  at  Rome," 

KiRWAN  (Dr,  N,  Murray)  to  Bishop  Hughes,  p,  57, 
states  :  "  At  about  the  close  of  the  second  century, 
Irenseus  records  it  as  a  tradition  received  from  one 
Papias,  and  is  followed  by  your  other  authorities.  But 
who  Papias  was,  whilst  there  are  various  conjectures, 
nobody  knows.  And  Eusebius  speaks  of  the  matter  as 
a  doubtful  tradition.  Here,  sir,  is  the  amount  of  your 
testimony,  and  it  resolves  itself  into  the  truth  or  false- 
hood of  a  prattling  Papias,  who  told  Iremeus  that 
somebody  told  him  that  Peter  was  Pope  at  Rome." 

S,  T,  Bloomfield  writes.  Notes  on  1  Peter  :  "  Others 
suppose  that  by  Bab^'lon  is  here  figuratively  denoted 
Rome.  Yet  for  this  no  stronger  testimony  exists  than 
a  bare  tradition  derived  f  ron  Papias  ;  and  as  it  rests 
on  no  sufficient  authority,  so  neither  is  it  borne  out  by 
probability,  for  no  probable  reason  has  ever  been  alleged 
why  the  Apostle  should  here  call  Rome  by  the  name 
Babylon,  and  withhold  its  true  name," 

F,  TuRRETix,  who  has  written  so  abl}'  and  fully  with 
respect  to  the  Roman  residence  of  Peter,  presents  the 
same  view  with  respect  to  Papias,  as  the  author  of  the 
tradition.  He  says.  Op,  iii,  p.  148  :  "The  unanimity  of 
the  ancients,  who  firmly  held  that  Peter  lived  and  died 
at  Rome,  has  absolutely  no  weight,  for  this  story  has 
its  origin  in  Papias,  Bishop  of  Hierapolita,  in  Phrygia, 
who,  according  to  the  testimony  of  Eusebius,  was  not 
merely  of  mediocre  talents,  ignorant  and  credulous,  but 
deceptive  and  inclined  to  fables  ;  who  has  handed  down 
many    incredible    and    unrecorded    stories,   more   like 


/■6  WAS  PETER  EVER  AT  ROME? 

fables  tlian  reliable  histories  (Ens.  Lib.  iii.  cli.  3).  He 
was  also  the  author  of  tlie  story  of  the  Chiliasts.  He 
was  the  first  to  write  that  Peter  had  been  at  Rome. 
After  him  followed  Hegesippus,  Irenseus,  Clemens 
Alex.,  and  others  after,  and  so  their  statement  is  value- 
less, according  to  the  testimony  of  this  same  Eusebius, 
who  stated  that  the  majority  of  the  ecclesiastical 
writers,  especiall}''  Irenanis,  gave  occasion  for  this  same 
error.  Since,  therefoi*e,  the  credibilit}'^  of  this  same 
writer  is  so  doubtful  in  other  matters,  how  can  he  have 
our  assent  when  there  are  so  many  arguments  from  the 
Scriptures,  which  have  been  taken  up  in  order,  to  the 
contrary  ?  After  Eusebius,  Jerome  is  authority  that 
Papias  was  not  a  hearer  of  John  the  Apostle,  but  John 
the  Presb}'ter,  bearing  the  same  name,  but  another  than 
the  Apostle  ;  and  Baronius  proves  that  in  many  w^ays, 
and  plainly  shows  Papias'  veracity  to  be  doubtful,  quot- 
ing the  words  of  Eusebius,  '  from  which  you  can  easily 
understand,'  he  says,  '  that  discrimination  should  be 
sliown  regarding  traditions,  so  that  whoever  says  that 
he  has  accepted  any  of  the  traditions  of  the  elders, 
considers  them  all  credible." 

Professor  McGiffert,  who  has  given  a  new  and 
accurate  translation  of  Eusebius,  and  has  enriched  his 
work  with  notes  as  valuable  as  they  are  extensive,  thus 
expresses  his  view  of  Papias,  vol.  i.  p.  171  :  "Eusebius' 
judgment  of  Papias  may  have  been  unfavorably  influ- 
enced b}'-  his  hostility  to  the  strong  Chiliasm  of  the  lat- 
ter; yet  a  perusal  of  the  extant  fragments  of  Papias' 
writings  will  lead  anyone  to  think  that  Eusebius  was 
not  far  wronor  in  his  estimate  of  the  man." 


CAN  THE  CHARGE  A  GAINST  P API  AS  BE  PRO  VED  ?   V  7 


CAN  THE  CHARGE  AGAINST  PAPIAS  BE  PROVED? 

Notwithstanding  that  Papias  is  so  generally  regarded 
as  the  author  of  this  statement,  it  is  not  clear  that  the 
cliarge  is  proven.  Eusebius,  referring  to  a  statement 
that  Mark's  Gospel  was  written  at  the  request  of  Peter's 
hearers,  writes  (ii.  15):  "This  story  is  given  by  Clement 
of  Alexandria,  and  corroborated  by  Papias,  There  is, 
however,  a  report  that  it  is  this  Mark  that  Peter  men- 
tions in  his  First  Epistle,  which  it  is  also  pretended  was 
written  at  Rome,  and  that  Peter  intimates  this  himself 
by  using  the  term  '  Babylon '  in  a  metaphorical  sense 
for  Rome."     The  translation  is  by  Simon. 

Cardinal  Bellarmine,  attributing  this  metaphorical 
use  of  Babylon  to  Papias,  to  whom  it  does  not  belong, 
places  it  at  the  head  of  his  proofs  for  Peter's  residence 
in  Rome.  This  is  his  sole  Scriptural  authority  for 
Peter's  Roman  residence. 

Does  Papias  here  state  that  Peter  used  Babylon  in 
a  metaphorical  sense?  Many  able  authors  deny  the 
charge. 

Valesius,  the  Roman  Catholic  editor  of  Eusebius, 
writes  :  "  These  words  are  to  be  kept  perfectly  distinct 
from  tlie  preceding,  as  I  find  has  been  carefully  done  by 
Jerome  and  Nicephorus."  (Lib.  ii.  c.  15.)  Father  Dupin 
on  this  point  remarks:  "Some  have  thought  that 
Papias  and  St.  Clement  of  Alexandria,  cited  in  this 
chapter  by  Eusebius,  were  of  this  opinion,  but  it  is  not 
on  this  point  that  Eusebius  cited  them." 

BouziQUE,  the  Fi-ench  jurist,  writes  :  "  According  to 
Papias,  John  the  Presbyter  ascribed  that  Gospel  to 
Mark,  a  disciple  of  Peter,  but  without  saying  it  Avas  i)ut 


is  WAS  PETER  EVER  AT  ROME? 

together  in  Rome  (Eus.  iii.  39).  Eusebius,  reading  this 
passage  agreeably  to  the  opinion  of  this  time,  inferred 
from  it,  as  Clement  of  Alexandria,  that  the  interpreter 
of  Peter  was  then  in  Rome  in  company  with  the  Apos- 
tle ;  while  Papias  says,  solely  with  John  the  Pi-esbyter, 
that  Mark  wrote  the  Gospel  such  as  it  was  taught  by 
Peter,  Neither  the  Presbyter  nor  Papias,  his  disciple, 
speaks  of  sojourn  or  preaching  in  the  Imperial  City." 
(History  of  Christianity,  pp.  364,  371.) 

Dr.  Jarvis  remarks  (Church  Review,  i.  166):  "  It  is 
not  certain,  as  Valesius  and  other  critics  of  the  Roman 
communion  admit,  that  these  were  the  words  of  Papias  ; 
and  if  so,  we  have  only  the  testimony  of  the  fourth 
century." 

Thus  according  to  Jerome  and  Nicephorus  ;  Valesius 
and  Dtipin  ;  Bouzique  and  Jarvis  ;  all  scholars  of  note  ; 
two  of  tliem  Roman  Catholics  ;  the  advocates  of  the 
o])inion  that  Peter  wrote  Babylon  for  Rome,  are  de- 
prived of  Patristic  authority,  founded  on  a  mistaken 
assertion  with  respect  to  Papias. 

Not  until  the  fourth  century  do  we  find  that  the 
Babylon  of  Peter  was  interpreted  as  representing  Rome. 

If  the  view  is  correct,  as  taught  by  Auberlin  and 
others,  that  the  Apocal3''pse  is  a  sequel  to  Daniel,  the 
name  Babylon  Avas  naturally  used  in  the  Revelation 
symbolically  ;  but  inasmuch  as  the  book  was  probably 
written  at  the  close  of  the  century,  there  is  no  good 
reason  to  believe  that  Peter  ever  saw^  it,  or  knew  of 
such  use  ;  the  contrary  is  most  reasonable.  Nor  M'ould 
the  dispersion  have  understood  such  an  allusion,  for  we 
read  in  Lange  :  "  According  to  Schottgen  the  Jews  did 
not  begin  to  call  Rome  Bab^'lon  till  after  the  destruc- 
tion of  Jerusalem  ;"  and  this  event  occurred,  according 


CAN  THE  CHARGE  A  GAINST  PAPIAS  BE  PRO  VED  ?  7  9 

to  Wiesler,  more  than  six  years  after  Peter's  death.  It 
is  also  to  be  noticed  that  John  employs  the  term 
"  Babylon  the  Great." 

KiTTO  writes  (Int.  to  1  Peter)  :  "The  strongest  argu- 
ment against  the  Babylon  of  the  Apostle  being  taken 
for  Rome  seems  to  be  that  urged  by  Professor  Stuart 
in  his  note  on  Hug's  Introduction — '  That  mystical 
Babylon,'  i.  e.,  Rome,  is  meant,  is  still  less  probable. 
Mystical  names  of  this  kiud  in  a  prosaic  epistle,  consist- 
ing of  plain  and  hortatory  matter,  are  not  to  be  expected, 
and  caimot  be  admitted  without  strong  reasons," 

Arguing  in  the  same  line,  Michaelis  remarks  :  "The 
plain  language  of  epistolarj^  writing  does  not  admit  of 
figures  of  poetry  ;  and  though  it  would  be  very  allow- 
able in  a  poem  written  in  honor  of  Gottingen,  to  style 
it  another  Athens,  yet  if  a  Professor  of  this  University 
should  in  a  letter  from  Gottingen  date  it  Athens,  it 
would  be  a  greater  piece  of  pedantry  than  was  ever  yet 
charged  upon  the  learned." 

"Our  own  city  is  sometimes  called  Athens,  from  its 
situation  and  from  its  being  a  seat  of  learning,  but  it 
would  not  do  to  argue  that  a  letter  came  from  Edin- 
burgh, because  it  is  dated  from  Athens." — Brown, 
1  Peter  i.  548. 

We  therefore  prefer  to  believe  that  the  Apostle  of 
the  Circumcision  traveled  six  hundred  miles  to  Babylon, 
where  Josephus  says  (Antiqui.  xxxi,  5)  the  Jews  in 
Peter's  time  were  "infinite  myriads,  whose  nimiber  it  is 
not  possible  to  calculate  ;"  and  with  Philo,  another  con- 
temporary, that  they  constituted  "almost  one-half  the 
inhabitants."  We  see  no  good  reason  why  he  should 
travel  two  thousand  miles  to  Rome  (a  two  months' 
journey  at  that  time)  to  preach  to  eight  thousand  of 


80  WAS  PETER  EVER  AT  ROME? 

his  countrymen,  who  were  all  sometimes  banished  by  a 
single  order." 

The  great  Dr.  Bareoav  wisely  says,  Wks.  i.  509  : 
"Peter  was  too  skillful  a  fisherman  to  cast  his  net  there, 
where  there  were  no  fish." 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

Canon  jfarcar  on  tbe  (Question  ot  :KabsIon. 

Among  modern  writers  Canon  Farrar  has  strongly 
advocated  the  opinion  that  the  Apostle  Peter  wrote  his 
Epistles  in  the  City  of  Rome.  We  present  and  examine 
his  argument. 

In  the  "Early  Ages  of  Christianity,"  p.  595,  he 
writes  :  "  Against  the  literal  acceptance  of  the  word 
'Babylon'  there  are  four  powerful  arguments.  (1) 
There  is  not  the  faintest  tradition  in  those  regions  of 
any  visit  from  St.  Peter.  (2)  If  St,  Peter  was  in 
Babylon  at  the  time  this  Epistle  was  written,  there  is 
great  difficulty  in  accounting  for  his  familiarity  with 
the  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians,  which  was  not  written  till 
A.  D.  63.  (3)  It  becomes  difficult  to  imagine  circum- 
stances which  could  have  brought  him  from  the  far 
East  into  the  very  crisis  of  the  Neronian  persecution  in 
the  Babylon  of  the  West.  (4)  If  Marcus  be  the  Evan- 
gelist, he  was  with  St.  Peter  between  a.  d,  61-63,  and 
probably  rejoined  him  just  before  his  martjn-dom  in 
A.  D.  68.  We  should  not,  therefore,  expect  to  find  him  so 
far  away  as  Babylon  in  a.  d.  67." 

In  reply  to  Dr.  Farrar,  we  remark,  (])  That  it  is 
clear  that  we  have  onlv  manufactured  and  confused 
traditions  concerning  Peter,  and  these  framed  for  an 
obvious  purpose.  We  have  nothing  reliable  concerning 
his  later  years,  except  the  disputed  passage  concerning 


82  WAS  PETER  EVER  AT  ROME? 

Babylon,  and  a  faint  tradition  in  Origen,  that  he  labored 
in  Asia  Minor, 

(2)  Many  authors  regard  Peter's  Epistle  as  Avritten 
after  the  death  of  Paul,  and  there  was  no  reason  why 
the  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians  should  not  have  been 
carried  to  Babylon,  an  eight  days'  journey,  by  the  hands 
of  Silvanus,  whom  he  states  was  with  him  when  the 
letter  was  written. 

(3)  It  is  difficult  to  imagine  circumstances  to  have 
drawn  Peter  from  Babylon,  iiis  proper  field  of  labor,  to 
Rome,  where  he  was  not  needed,  at  any  time,  and  par- 
ticularly in  his  old  age  ;  to  lead  him  to  rush  into  danger, 
contrary  to  his  Lord's  command  ;  leaving  his  vastly  im- 
portant work,  where  he  was  protected  by  the  Parthian 
authorities.  This  whole  question  is  largely  a  balance  of 
probabilities,  and  this  greatl}^  preponderates  in  favor  of 
tlie  literal  interpretation.  This,  we  trust,  will  be  made 
clear  in  the  course  of  investigation. 

(4)  Mark's  connection  with  Peter  is  a  matter  of  great 
interest,  and  will  warrant  a  thorough  examination. 

Peter's  connection  with  mark. 

Sawyer,  in  "  Organic  Christianity,"  p.  47,  says : 
"  Mark's  supposed  residence  at  Rome  depends  upon  the 
supposition  that  Peter  resided  there,  and  has  no  other 
foundation.  Mark  was  Peter's  companion  at  Babylon. 
1  Peter  v.  13. 

"  The  most  probable  supposition  in  respect  to  the 
composition  of  St.  Mark's  Gospel  is,  that  it  was  written 
at  Babylon  after  the  death  of  the  Apostle  Paul,  and 
designed  for  general  circulation  in  the  Roman  Empire." 

Faussett  in  his  Bib.  Cyclop.,  Art,  Mark,  gives  a  satis- 


PETER'S  CONNECTION  WITH  MARK.  83 

factory  statement  of  this  question,  "  After  Paul's 
death  Mark  joined  Peter,  with  whom  he  had  been  asso- 
ciated in  the  writing  of  tlie  Gospel.  Mark  was  with 
Paul,  intending  to  go  to  Asia  Minor,  a.  d.  01-63  (Col. 
iv.  10).  In  2  Tim.  iv.  11,  a.  d.  67,  Mark  was  near 
Ephesus,  whence  he  was  about  to  be  taken  by  Timothy 
to  Rome. 

"  It  is  not  likely  Peter  would  have  trenched  on  Paul's 
field  of  labor,  the  Churches  of  Asia  Minor,  during 
Paul's  lifetime.  At  his  death  Mark  joined  liis  old 
father  in  the  faith  at  Babj'lon.  Silvanus  or  Silas  had 
been  substituted  for  Mark,  as  Paul's  companion,  because 
of  Mark's  temporary  unfaithfulness  ;  but  Mark,  now 
restored,  is  associated  with  Silvanus  (1  Peter  v.  12), 
Paul's  companion,  in  Peter's  esteem,  as  Mark  was 
already  reinstated  in  Paul's  esteem. 

"Naturally  Mark  salutes  the  Asiatic  Churches  with 
whom  he  had  already  been,  under  Paul,  spiritually  con- 
nected. The  tradition  (Clemens  Alex,  in  Euseb.  H.  E. 
vi.  14  ;  Clem.  Alex.  Hyp.  6)  that  Mark  was  Peter's 
companion  at  Home,  arose  from  misunderstanding 
'  Babylon '  (1  Peter  v.  13)  to  be  Home.  A  friendly  salu- 
tation is  not  the  place  where  an  enigmatical  prophetical 
title  could  be  used  (Rev.  xvii.  5). 

"Babylon  was  the  center  from  which  the  Asiatic 
dispersion  whom  Peter  (1  Peter  i.  2)  addresses  was 
derived.  Alexandria  was  the  final  scene  of  Mark's 
labors,  bishopric,  and  martyrdom." — Nicephorus,  H.  E. 
ii.  43. 

"It  is  very  probable  that  about  the  year  a.  d.  63  or 
64  Mark  visited  Colossre  and  the  adjacent  regions,  and 
then  went  to  Babylon  to  see  Peter,  and  made  known  to 
him  the  affairs  of  the  Churches  in  Asia  Minor,  u^dou  the 


84  WAS  PETER  EVER  AT  ROME? 

receipt  of  which  information  the  Apostle  addressed  his 
Epistle  to  these  Churches." — Harman's  Intro.  H.  Script, 
ed.  Crooks  and  Hurst,  p.  697. 

Bishop  Ellicott's  view  is,  Intro.  Com.  Mark, 
p.  189:  "Mark  accompanied  Barnabas  (a.  d.  52)  in 
his  work  among  the  Jews  and  Gentiles  of  Cyprus  (Acts 
XV.  39).  About  eight  years  after  he  was  with  St.  Peter 
on  the  banks  of  the  Euphrates,  which  still  bore  the 
name  of  old  Babylon,  and  there  must  have  met  Silvanus 
or  Silas,  who  had  taken  his  place  as  the  companion  and 
minister  of  St.  Paul  (1  Peter  v.  12, 13)." 

Bleek,  Intro.  Mark,  vol.  ii.,  writes:  "  When  1st  Peter 
was  written  Mark  must  have  been  with  Peter  in  Baby- 
lon, or  its  neighborhood.  This  Epistle,  as  we  shall  see, 
Avas  not  certainly  written  at  an  early  date,  though  we 
cannot  exactly  say  when  ;  perhaps  between  the  writing 
of  that  to  the  Colossians  and  of  2d  Timothy  ;  so  that, 
in  the  interval,  Mark  must  have  visited  Peter  at 
Babylon." 

mark  secretary  to  peter. 

The  general  tradition  has  been  that  Mark  was  the 
interpreter  and  amanuensis  of  the  Apostle.  On  this 
Meyer,  Intro.  Com.  Mark,  remarks  :  "At  1  Peter  v.  13, 
Ave  find  Mark  again  with  his  spiritual  father  Peter  at 
Babylon.  His  special  relation  to  Peter  is  specified  by 
the  unanimous  testimony  of  the  ancient  Church,  as 
having  been  that  of  interpreter  .  .  .  denoting  the  ser- 
vice of  a  secretary,  who  had  to  write  down  the  oral 
communications  of  his  Apostle,  whether  from  dictation 
or  in  a  more  free  exercise  of  his  own  activitN^,  and  thus 
became  his  interpreter  vi  toriting  to  others.  This  view 
is  plainly  confirmed  by  Jerome,  ad.  Hedib.  ii." 


MARK  SECRETARY  TO  PETER.  85 

Archbislioi^  Tiiomsox,  Speak.  Com.  Intro.  INIavk, 
writes  :  "  Somewhat  later  Mark  is  with  Peter  in  Baby- 
lon (1  Peter  v.  13).  Some  have  considered  Babylon 
to  be  a  name  given  here  to  Rome  in  a  mystical 
sense  ;  surely  witliout  reason,  since  tlie  date  of  a  letter 
is  not  the  place  to  look  for  a  figure  of  speech.  Of  the 
journey  to  Babylon  we  have  no  more  evidence  ;  of  its 
date,  causes,  results,  we  know  nothing.  It  may  be  con- 
jectured that  Mark  journeyed  to  Asia  Minor  (c.  iv.  10), 
and  thence  went  to  join  Peter  in  Babylon.  .  .  Ancient 
writers  with  one  consent  make  the  Evangelist  the  inter- 
preter of  the  Apostle  Peter." 

With  regard  to  the  argument  drawn  from  a  few  Latin- 
ized expressions,  that  Mark  wrote  at  Rome,  the  JVorth 
Brit.  Rev.,  November,  1848,  p.  30,  replies  :  "We  have 
every  reason  to  believe,  as  will  appear  from  the  sequel, 
that  St,  Mark  wrote  his  Gospel  at  Babylon  after  tlie 
martyrdom  of  St.  Paul,  and  consequently  designed  it 
for  tlie  use  of  the  Latin  as  well  as  the  Asiatic  Churches, 
whose  care  had  then  altogether  devolved  on  St.  Peter. 
This  appears  to  us  to  explain  in  a  most  satisfactory 
manner  the  occurrence  in  it  of  a  few  Latin  Avords  and 
Latinized  expressions,  upon  which  the  supposition  of  its 
having  been  written  at  Rome  after  all  depends." 

Steiger,  on  1  Peter,  ii.  316,  writes:  "  This  tradition,  so 
generally  received  and  well  authenticated,  of  Mark's 
relation  to  Peter,  constrains  us,  since  there  is  nothing 
to  invalidate  it,  to  regard  him  as  the  companion  of 
Peter  named  here,  although  we  need  not  on  that 
account  suppose  witli  Papias  (Eus.  1,  ii.  15)  and 
Clemens,  what  appears  to  be  only  their  own  opinion, 
that  this  Epistle  was  written  in  Rome,  as  is  also  affirmed 
in  the  false  superscriptions  of  small  copies.     We  con- 


86  ]VAS  PETER  EVER  AT  ROMEt 

elude,  then,  that  Mark  is  one  and  the  same  person  with 
the  Jolin  Mark  mentioned  in  tlie  Acts  of  the  Apostles. 
See  Hug's  Intro,  ii.  §  13." 

Brown,  on  1  Peter,  quotes  Da  Costa,  a  brilliant 
converted  Hebrew  layman  of  Holland,  as  presenting  a 
probable  and  interesting  suggestion  that  Mark  was  the 
devout  soldier  sent  by  Cornelius  to  Peter  ;  consequently 
he  was  among  the  first-fruits  of  the  Apostle's  work 
among  the  Gentiles,  and  naturally  was  endeared  to 
liini  as  Timothy  was  to  Paul.  He  notes  the  military 
expressions  in  Mark's  Gospel  as  a  ground  for  this  not 
improbable  oj)inion. 

The  Roman  name  of  Mark  and  the  Latin  words  used 
by  him  are,  by  this  view,  satisfactorily  explained. 

It  adds  greatly  to  the  force  of  the  argument  that 
three  pre-eminent  Roman  Catholic  authors,  Yalesius, 
DupiN,  and  De  Marca,  maintain  that  "  St.  Mark's 
Gospel  was  Avritten  from  the  Mesojiotamian  capital, 
and  not  from  Rome."  See  Greenwood's  Cathedra 
Petri,  i.  245. 

Valesius  was  the  editor  of  Eusebius  ;  Dupin,  tlie  emi- 
nent Church  historian  ;  De  IVfarca,  Archbishop  of  Paris. 

The  natural  view  of  the  Apostle's  language  is  clearly 
that  Mark  was  with  him  in  ]\[esopotamia,  acting  as  his 
secretary,  and  together  with  Silvanns  assisting  in  the 
vast  work  among  the  m^-riads  of  the  Circumcision  in 
that  region.  The  tradition  which  places  him  at  Rome 
with  Peter  is  altogether  improbable,  and  has  no  facts  to 
give  it  credibility. 


CHAPTER  IX. 
^be  Diew  of  tbe  ©rientalist  %igbtfoot. 

There  is  probably  no  author  wlio  lias  written  on  our 
subject  whose  authority  is  of  more  value  than  that  of 
John  Lightfoot. 

"  Lightfoot,  one  of  the  greatest  Hebrew  scholars  in 
history,  to-day  enjoys  a  universal  fame." — Schaff-Herzog 
Enc3^c. 

"  In  Biblical  criticism  I  consider  Lightfoot  the  first 
of  all  English  writers."— Dr.  Adam  Clarke. 

"  By  his  deep  researches  into  the  Rabbinical  writings 
he  has  done  more  to  illustrate  the  phraseology  of  the 
Holy  Scriptures  .  .  .  than  any  other  writer  before  or 
since." — T.  H,  Home,  Bibl.  Intro. 

Lightfoot,  who  flourished  in  the  seventeenth  century, 
preached  a  sermon  on  1  Peter  v.  13,  before  the  Univer- 
sity of  Cambridge,  from  which  we  quote,  p.  3  : 

"The  falsities  and  fictions  in  ecclesiastical  stovy, 
which  are  not  few  nor  small,  have  proceeded,  especiallv, 
from  four  originals,  one,  or  more,  or  all  :  J^irsf,  from 
ignorance  or  misconstruction  ;  Second,  from  over  offi- 
ciousness  in  the  relator  ;  Third,  from  favor  to  a  party  ; 
Fourth,  from  a  mind  or  purpose  to  deceive." 

These  causes  Lightfoot  elaborates,  and  says  he  as- 
cribes more  influence  to  the  two  things,  "  viz..  Officious, 
ness  to  Peter  and  a  study  to  advance  Rome  .  .  .  Avhen 
writers  in  their  relations  were  minded  to  honor  singular 
places,  persons,   and  actions,  it  is  hard  to  find  them 


88  WAS  PETER  EVER  AT  ROME? 

keeping  witliin  bounds."  P.  6  :  "  Every  place  almost 
had  Paul  for  their  founder,  it  was  fit  sure  the  Church 
of  Rome  should  outvie  others,  as  being  the  nobler  place  ; 
therefore  historical  ofiiciousness  brings  Peter  thither 
also.  For  that  Church  strove  for  dignity  of  jilace 
before  it  did  for  dignity  of  episcopac3^  And  upon  this 
account  it  was  like  it  was  invented  that  the  minister  of 
Circumcision,  Peter,  as  well  as  the  minister  of  Uncircum- 
cision,  Paul,  was  brought  thither."  P.  7  :  "  Babylon 
is  here  to  be  properl}'^  taken  for  Bab^'lon  in  Chaldea. 
First.  Peter  was  the  minister  of  Circumcision  ;  what  had 
he  to  do  Avith  Rome,  the  chief  city  of  the  Gentiles  ? 
Paul  was  there  justly,  but  if  Peter  had  been  there  he 
would  have  been  in  Paul's  line.  Herein  he  held  agree- 
ment with  Paul,  Gal.  ii.  9.  He,  with  James  and  John, 
gave  the  right  hand  of  fellowship  to  Paul  and  Barnabas, 
that  these  should  go  to  the  Heathen  and  they  to  the 
Circumcision." 

Lightfoot  continues  :  "  Take  Peter,  chief  minister  of 
the  Circumcision,  and  he  is  in  the  midst  of  the  Uncir- 
cumcision.  Need  I  show  how  there  were  multitudes  of 
Jews  in  Babylon,  avIio  returned  not  with  Ezra  ;  need  I 
tell  you  that  there  were  in  that  country  three  Jewish 
universities  ;  or  need  I  speak  how  there  were  scattered 
ten  tribes  in  Assyria  ?  Then  how  proper  it  was  for 
Peter  to  have  been  there  ? 

"  Second.  The  word  'Bosor'  in  St.  Peter  ii.  15,  speaks 
Peter  in  Babylon.  What  would  the}'^  think  of  it  to 
whom  he  wrote,  if  he  wrote  from  Rome  ?  But  if  he 
wrote  from  Chaldea  it  was  the  idiom  of  that  country  ! 
Bosor  was  the  name  of  the  place  where  Balaam  was, 
'  Balaam  of  Bosor.'  But  in  Numbers  xxii.  5,  it  is  called 
'  Pethor,'  Pethor  being  turned  into  Bosor  by  a  change 


VIEW  OF  THE  ORIENTALIST  LIGHTFOOT.         89 

of  two  letters,  ordinarily  done  by  the  Jews  of  those 
times ;  their  language  being  now  degenerated  into 
Syriac.  .  .  And  Peter  speaking  in  the  dialect  of 
Babylon,  it  is  a  fair  conjecture  that  he  was  at  Babylon 
when  he  spoke, 

*'  I  shall  add  more.  Every  argument  that  is  used  to 
prove  that  Peter  was  not  at  Rome,  is  sound  argument 
for  this  that  we  are  upon,  viz.,  that  he  was  at  Babj'lon. 
And  the  consideration  that  Peter  ended  liis  days  at 
Babylon  is  very  useful,  if  my  judgment  fail  not,  at  the 
setting  out  of  ecclesiastical  story." 

Lightfoot  commenting  on  1  Cor.  xiv.,  says  :  *'  Begin- 
ning from  the  East  there  was  the  vast  settlement  in 
Babylonia  of  those  Jews  who  had  remained  after  the 
return  from  the  captivity.  Of  the  twenty-four  courses 
of  priests  only  four  had  followed  Ezra  into  Palestine. 

"  No  less  than  three  universities  of  Jews  existed  in 
Mesopotamia  alone.  It  was  a  well  known  saying, '  Who- 
ever dwells  in  Babylon  is  as  though  he  dwelt  in  the  land 
of  Israel.'  " 

Doddridge  tells  us  that  it  was  Lightfoot's  argument 
which  convinced  Bishop  Cumberland  that  Babylon  was 
not  Rome. 

Ecclesiastical  history  becomes  more  luminous  and 
intelligible,  with  respect  to  Apostolic  experiences,  if  we 
keep  Peter  in  his  proper  place,  and  do  not  allow  vague 
traditions,  and  selfish  motives  in  authors,  to  transfer 
him  two  thousand  miles,  where  he  M^as  not  needed,  and 
where  no  rational  motive  could  have  taken  him. 

THE    ORDER    OF   PROVINCES. 

A  strong  geographical  argument  in  favor  of  the 
Chaldean  Babylon  is  found  in  the  order  of  the  prov- 


OO  WAS  PETER  EVER  AT  ROME? 

inces  to  Avliicli  the  Epistle  is  addressed.  Tlie_y  read 
from  ICast  to  West,  not  from  West  to  East.  Tliis  inter- 
pretation is  natural. 

Dean  Hoavson,  in  his  valuable  "ITorie  Petrina?,"  p. 
132,  puts  the  case  strongly  :  "  In  approaching  the  ques- 
tion on  which  so  much  has  been  written,  whether  it  was 
really  the  Eastern  Babylon  or  the  great  city  of  the 
West,  described  under  an  allegorical  name,  from  which 
St.  Peter  sent  this  letter,  Ave  have  a  strong  prima  facie 
argument  in  the  geographical  order  in  which  at  the 
outset  he  ranges  the  Churches  addressed  by  him. 

"He  begins  with  the  North  and  sweeps  around  to  the 
West.  This  Avould  be  quite  unnatural  in  the  case  of 
one  who  was  writing  from  a  city  of  the  West,  but  it 
would  be  an  easy  and  obvious  order  to  follow  when 
writing  from  a  city  of  the  East,  to  residents  in  Provinces 
distributed  according  to  that  succession.  This  may 
seem  at  first  sight  a  somewhat  trivial  argument,  but  it 
is  really  a  strong  one,  because  it  has  more  obvious 
naturalness  in  the  style  of  writing." 

Dean  Alford  in  Proleg.  1  Peter,  130,  contending  for 
the  literal  interpretation  of  the  word,  adds  :  "  It  is  some 
corroboration  of  the  view  that  our  Epistle  was  written 
from  the  Assyrian  Babylon,  to  find  that  the  countries 
mentioned  in  his  address  are  enumerated,  not  as  a  per- 
son in  Rome  or  in  Egypt  would  enumerate  them,  but 
in  an  order  proceeding,  as  has  already  been  noticed, 
from  East  to  West  and  South,  and  also  to  find  that 
Cosmas-Indico-Pleustes,  in  the  sixth  century,  quotes  the 
conclusion  of  our  Epistle  'as  a  proof  of  the  early  prog- 
ress of  the  Christian  religion  without  the  bounds  of  the 
Roman  empire,'  b}^  which,  therefore,  we  perceive  that 
by  Babylon  he  did  not  understand  Rome." 


THE  ORDER  OF  PROVINCES.  91 

Dr.LiTTLEDALE,  ill  his"Pl;iin  Reasons  Against  Rome," 
argues  in  the  same  line.  "There  is  nothing  whatever 
in  Scripture  to  connect  St.  Peter  witli  Rome  direct!}', 
except  the  ancient  guess  that  'Babylon,'  in  1  Peter  v.  13, 
may  mean  Rome,  while  even  if  it  does,  nothing  is  said 
about  any  authority  there.    .    . 

"  St.  Peter's  own  opening  words  contain  a  very  cogent 
argument  the  other  way.  '  Pontus,  Galatia,  Cappadocia, 
Asia,  and  Bithynia  '  (1  Peter  i.  l),  are  named  in  order 
from  East  to  West;  natural  enougli  in  a  writer  at  Babj'lon 
in  Mesopotamia  addressing  people  in  Asia  Minor,  but 
the  exact  reverse  of  the  order  which  a  writer  at  Rome 
would  be  likely  to  adopt  if  sending  a  letter  to  the  East." 

NiEBUHE,  the  eminent  historian,  confirms  this  view  : 
"  In  St.  Peter  i.  1,  the  countries  are  addressed  not  from 
West  to  East  (as  would  be  natural  to  one  Avriting  from 
Rome),  but  from  East  to  West  (as  would  be  natural  in 
writing  from  Babylon)."     Quoted  in  Expositor  iii.  4.  4. 

"  In  Holy  Scripture,  whenever  a  number  of  different 
nations,  countries,  or  provinces  is  mentioned,  the  order 
is  to  begin  with  that  which  is  geographically  nearest  to 
the  writer  at  the  time  of  writing,  and  to  end  with  the 
more  remote.  This  order  is  the  natural  order  and  it 
is  never  reversed,  which  has  always  seemed  to  us  a 
conclusive  argument  against  the  Roman  hypothesis." 
"  Romanism,"  156. — J.  II.  Hopkins. 

John  Wesley  writes.  Notes,  etc.:  "He  names  those 
five  provinces  in  the  order  wherein  they  occurred  to 
those  writing  from  the  East." 

"The  fact  that  the  countries  to  Avhich  the  Epistle  is 
addressed  are  named  in  the  order  in  which  a  writer  in 
Babylon  would  naturallv  view  them,  confirms  that  con- 
clusion."— Whedon's  Cora. 


CHAPTER  X. 

Dr.  (5.  W.  Samson's  argument. 

In  I]a2)t.  Qnar.  Rev.,  July,  1873,  Dr.  Samson  has  an 
elaborate  and  instructive  article  on  "  Peter  and  his  rela- 
tions to  the  Roman  Church,"  which  fully  summarizes 
the  line  of  argument  in  favor  of  Rome  as  the  Babylon 
of  Peter. 

On  p.  333  we  read  :  "The  place  called  Babylon  is 
without  any  reasonable  doubt  Rome,  where  Peter  was 
then  held  for  trial,  and  where  he  was  soon  after  crucified. 
The  evidence  as  to  this  is  clear  and  connected.  Two 
suppositions  as  to  the  reference  are  possible  :  first,  that 
it  is  literal  ;  second,  that  it  is  symbolic  in  its  meaning  ; 
while  if  it  is  literal,  either  Babylon  on  the  Euphrates  or 
Babylon  on  the  Nile  must  be  referred  to.  It  is  sufficient 
here  to  remark  that  the  universal  historical  testimony 
makes  Rome  the  city  referred  to." 

Dr.  Samson  accepts  the  tradition  as  to  the  early  visit  to 
Rome  as  true  :  "  During  seven  or  eight  subsequent  years, 
up  to  A.  D.  50,  Peter  disappears.  .  .  It  is  worthy  of 
note  that  it  is  during  this  interesting  period  of  several 
years'  duration,  as  the  early  Christian  writers  all  agree, 
that  Peter  followed  up  his  influence  gained  among 
Romans  by  a  visit  to  Rome."  He  alludes  here  to  the 
conversion  of  Cornelius. 

The  allusions  of  Paul  to  Peter  in  1  Cor.  are  regarded 
as  proof  of  Peter's  visit  to  Corinth,  and  naturally  an 


DR.    G.    W.   SAIISOJV'S  ARGUMENT.  93 

extension  of  his  visit  to  Rome.  The  same  writer  notes 
likenesses  between  the  two  Apostles'  epistles,  indi- 
cating personal  association  and  intercourse  in  Rome. 
He  says :  "  Moreover,  the  common  companionship  of 
Silvanus,  or  Silas,  and  Mark  with  both  Peter  and  Paul 
is  inexplicable,  unless  we  suppose  them  to  have  been 
associated  at  Rome." 

He  directs  attention  to  the  words  of  Clement,  Igna- 
tius, Papias,  Irenaeus,  the  Clementines,  the  Apostolic 
Constitutions,  Origen,  Dionysius,  Tertullian,  Hippolytus, 
Clemens  Alex.,  Cyprian,  Ambrose,  Epiphanius,  Euse- 
bius,  and  Jerome.  He  says  :  "Peter  was  at  Rome  from 
A.  D.  43  to  49.  On  a  second  visit  to  Rome  he  Avas  emi- 
nently useful  to  Jewish  disciples  scattered  abroad.  .  . 
Finally,  Peter  met  with  special  firmness  the  martyr's 
trial,  according  to  the  prophecy  of  Jesus  (John  xxi. 
18,  19),  in  the  eleventh  year  of  Nero,  a.  d,  67." 

A  similar  elaborate  defense  of  the  same  position,  will 
be  found  in  Intro.  1  Peter,  Speaker's  Commentary,  by 
Canon  F.  C.  Cook.  All  that  can  be  said  on  that  side  of 
the  question  is  forcibly  presented  by  these  two  able 
scholars. 

We  propose,  in  reply  to  the  preceding  arguments,  to 
present  extensively  the  reasonings  of  standard  authors, 
who  have  tauglit  that  Peter  resided  in  Babylon  in 
Parthia,  and  there  wrote  his  Epistles. 

At  this  stage  of  the  investigation  we  introduce  a  con- 
sideration which  has  a  bearing  on  the  inquiry,  and  is 
worthy  of  notice  :  What  has  led  Rome  to  assume  the 
name  of  the  city  specially  marked  with  the  Divine 
Curse  ? 


04  WAS  PETER  EVER  AT  ROME? 

Rome's  figurative  interpretation  a  confession  of 
weakness. 

It  is  acknowledged  by  the  Roman  Church  that  the 
Babylon  of  St.  Peter  is  Rome,  and  that  the  Babylon  of 
St.  Joliii  in  the  Apocalypse  is  likewise  Rome. 

Her  writers  claim  that  the  Divine  woes  are  j^redicted 
concerning  Rome  Pagan,  some  affirming  that  the  de- 
struction foretold  was  inflicted  by  the  Goths  in  the  fifth 
century,  others  that  aii  Apostate  Rome  of  the  future  is 
indicated. 

Singular  is  it,  that  many  of  her  own  writers  in  the 
past,  in  view  of  her  history  and  condition,  have  pro- 
nounced that  the  predictions  of  Rev.  xvii.  and  xviii. 
concern  Rome  Papal. 

When  we  consider  tliat  the  vast  multitude  of  her 
children  who  left  her  at  the  period  of  the  Reformation, 
with  remarkable  unanimity  held  to  the  same  view  and 
were  influenced  in  action  by  this  belief  ;  it  is  certainly 
a  proof  that  no  other  passage  in  Scripture  can  be  claimed 
in  support  of  Peter's  visit  to  Rome  ;  else  this  Church, 
under  the  circumstances,  would  not  thus  have  acknowl- 
edged the  possibility  of  her  being  the  object  of  the 
Divine  Curse,  as  a  vast  multitude  of  the  most  godly 
and  enlightened  Christian  scholars  have  believed  and 
aflirmed. 

Before  proceeding  to  consider  Dr.  Samson's  argument 
Ave  will  further  illustrate  the  point  here  noticed. 

Roman  scholars  confess  that  there  is  no  evidence  for 
Peter's  Roman  visit,  outside  his  first  Epistle. 

Albert  Barnes  clearly  states  this  question,  Intro. 
1  Peter:  ''On  the  supposition  that  the  word  Babylon 
refers  to  Rome,  rests  nearly  all  the  evidence  which  the 


A    CONFESSIO^^  OF   WEAAWE.SS.  95 

Roman  Catliolics  can  adduce  that  the  Apostle  Peter  was 
ever  at  Rome  at  all." 

"  There  is  nothing  else  in  the  New  Testament  that 
furnishes  the  slightest  proof  that  he  ever  was  there. 
The  only  passage  on  which  Bellarmine  relies  to  show 
that  Peter  was  at  Rome  is  the  passage  now  under  con- 
sideration. "  That  Peter  was  at  one  time  at  Rome,"  he 
says,  "  we  show  first  from  the  testimony  of  Peter  him- 
self, who  thus  speaks  at  the  end  of  his  first  epistle  : 
'The  Church  which  is  at  Babj'lon,  elected  together  with 
3'ou,  saluteth  you.'  He  does  not  pretend  to  cite  any 
other  evidence  from  Scripture,  nor  does  any  other  writer." 

That  the  Babylon  of  Revelation  is  Rome  hardly 
requires  argument.  Bishop  \yoKDswoRTH,  on  Rev.  xvii. 
(ii.  250),  says  :  "  The  voice  of  the  Christian  Cliurch,  in  the 
age  of  St.  John  himself,  and  for  many  centuries  after  it, 
has  given  an  almost  unanimous  verdict  on  that  subject : 
"That  the  Seven-hilled  City,  the  great  cit}^  the  Queen 
of  the  Earth,  Babjdon  the  Great  of  the  Apocalypse,  is 
the  city  of  Rome." 

Bishop  Newton,  on  the  Prophecies,  553,  asserts : 
"  By  Babylon  was  meant  Rome,  as  all  authors  of  all  ages 
and  countries  agree." 

All  Roman  authors  here  agree.  Baronius  will 
answer  for  them,  Baronius'  Annals,  a.  d.  45  :  "  All  per- 
sons confess  that  Rome  is  denoted  by  the  name  of 
Babylon  in  the  Apocalypse  of  St.  John." 

lie  also  affirms  that  "  the  fall  of  Rome,  effected  by 
Alaric,  was  the  fulfillment  of  the  prophecy  of  St.  John." 
Such  also  is  the  statement  of  Bellarmine,  Bossuet,  ami 
others. 

But  as  Rome  revived,  and  the  Bishops  of  Rome  have 
lived  and  reigned  for  centuries  since,  a  new  interpreta- 


96  WAS  PETER  EVER  AT  ROME? 

tion  was  required;  which  is,  that  in  the  ficture  a  heathen 
apostate  Rome  will  arise,  and  in  this  power  will  the 
predictions  be  accomplished. 

Bishop  Wordsworth  writes,  Com.  ii.  251  :  "This  is 
the  hypothesis  of  some  learned  Romish  theologians. 
It  is  maintained  by  Juarez,  Viegas,  Ribera,  Lessius, 
Menochius,  Cornelius  a  Lapide,  and  others,  particu- 
larly Dr.  Manning,  in  our  own  day. 

"This  hypothesis  is  important  to  be  noticed,  as  an 
avowal  on  their  part  that  the  other  theory,  above  stated, 
of  their  co-religionists,  Bellarraine,  Baron ius,  Bossuet, 
and  many  more — who  say  that  these  prophecies  were 
fulfilled  in  ancient  heathen  Rome — is  untenable. 

"Here,  then,  is  a  remarkable  phenomenon.  Here  are 
two  discordant  scliools  of  Romish  theologians.  The 
one  school  says  that  these  Ajjocalyptic  2:)rophecies  con- 
cern the  Rome  that  was  destroyed  more  than  a  thousand 
years  ago.  The  other  school  affirms  that  they  relate  to 
the  Rome  of  some  future  time.  They  differ  widely 
from  each  other  in  the  interpretation  of  these  prophecies, 
which  they  all  agree  concern  their  own  city.  And  yet 
they  say  they  have  an  infallible  interpreter  of  Scripture 
resident  at  Rome.  And  thej^  boast  much  of  their  own 
unity. 

"There  is  something  ominous  in  this  discord.  It 
makes  their  agreement  more  striking.  It  confirms  the 
proof  that  these  Apocalyptic  prophecies  concern  Rome. 
Both  tliese  schools  of  Roman  Catholic  expositors  allow 
that  Babylon  is  Mome.  A  remarkable  avowal,  Avhicli  is 
carefully  to  be  borne  in  mind." 

This  is  not  the  place  to  discuss  the  question  of  the 
reference  of  John  xvii.  and  xviii.  to  the  Papal  Church, 
as  held  by  most  Protestant  expositors.     We  simply  note 


A   CONCEDED    WEAKNESS  OF  PEOOF.  97 

the  fact,  and  that  with  them  agreed  many  preceding 
Roman  Catholic  writers. 

"This  interpretation  is  not  a  new  one,"  says  Words- 
wortli.  "  It  may  be  traced  in  the  writings  of  JPeter  of 
Blois,  and  in  the  expositions  of  Joachim,  abbot  of 
Calabria  at  the  end  of  the  twelfth  centnry,  of  Luher- 
tinus  di  Casali,  Peter  Olivi,  and  others  in  the  thirteenth 
century,  Marsilius  of  Padua,  and  those  of  the  illustrious 
Dante  and  Petrarch." 

Dr.  C.  Hodge,  Syst.  Theo.,  iii.  882,  writes  :  "Not  only 
the  poets  Dante  and  Petrarch  denounced  the  corruptions 
of  the  Church  of  Rome,  but  down  to  the  time  of  the  Re- 
formation that  Church  was  held  up  by  a  succession  of 
theologians  or  ecclesiastics,  as  the  Babylon  of  the  Apoca- 
lypse which  was  to  be  overthrown  and  rendered  desolate." 

A   CONCEDED    AVEAKNESS    OF   PKOOF. 

In  view  of  the  above  considerations,  that  Rome  con- 
sents to  the  view  that  the  Bab3'lon  of  Peter  is  Rome, 
it  seems  clear  that  this  Church  sees  the  necessity  for 
some  Scriptural  evidence  for  her  Peter-Roman  story, 
and  that  she  can  find  no  other  than  1  Peter  v.  13. 

Some  writers  have  put  this  matter  in  forcible  terms  : 
"  It  is  singular  that  the  Romish  Church  contends 
earnestly  for  that  figurative  meaning.  See  the  Rhemish 
Nexo  Testament,  where  they  call  the  Protestants  '  dis- 
honest and  partial  handlers  of  God's  Word  '  for  opposing 
this  view  from  which  they  endeavor  to  build  a  proof 
that  Peter  was  at  Rome.  Fulke  fairly  remarks  :  *  You 
are  content  that  Rome  be  the  See  of  Antichrist,  so  you 
may  have  Peter  at  Rome  ;  seeing  you  will  needs  have 
Rome  to  be  Babylon  in  this  place,  as  in  Rev.  xvi.  and 
xvii.  you  cannot  avoid  the  See  of  Antichrist  from  the  city 


98  WAS  PETER  EVER  AT  ROME? 

of  Rome  ;  for  tlie  Holy  Ghost  in  the  Revelation  speaks 
not  only  of  tlie  persecution  of  the  heathen  emperors, 
but  also  of  the  incitements  to  false  doctrine,  etc." — Com. 
Rel.  Tr.  Soc,  1  Pet.  v.  13. 

The  English  version  of  Poole's  Commentary  is  of 
like  force. 

"  The  Papists  would  have  Babylon  here  to  be  Rome 
as  Rev.  xvii.  and  that  Peter  gives  it  that  name  rather 
than  its  own,  because  being  escaped  out  of  prison  at 
Jerusalem,  Act  xii.  17,  he  would  not  have  it  known 
where  he  was. 

"But  how  comes  it  that  he  who  had  been  so  bold 
before  should  be  so  timorous  now  ?  Did  this  become 
the  Head  of  the  Church,  the  Vicar  of  Christ,  and  the 
Prince  of  the  Apostles  ?  And  is  it  probable  that  he 
should  live  twenty-five  years  at  Rome  (as  they  pretend 
he  did)  and  yet  not  be  known  to  be  there  ?  Wherever 
he  was,  he  had  Mark  with  him  now,  who  is  said  to  have 
died  in  Alexandria,  the  eighth  j^ear  of  Nero,  and  Peter 
not  till  six  years  after. 

"  If  Mark  then  did  first  constitute  the  Church  of 
Alexandria  and  govern  it  (as  they  say  he  did)  for  so 
many  years,  it  will  be  hard  to  find  him  and  Peter  at 
Rome  together.  But  if  they  will  needs  have  Rome 
meant  Babylon,  let  them  enjoy  their  zeal,  who  rather 
than  not  find  Peter's  chair,  would  go  to  hell  to  seek  it, 
and  are  more  concerned  to  have  Rome  the  seat  of  Peter, 
than  the  Church  of  Christ."  Poole  himself,  in  his 
Sj^nopsis,  adopts  the  figurative  view. 

W.  M.  Taylor,  Life  of  Peter,  333,  remarks  :  "When 
Peter  wrote  his  first  epistle  he  was  at  Babylon  on  the 
Euphrates.  An  attempt  indeed  has  been  made  to 
prove  that  this  means  Rome,  but  such  a  view  is  ludi- 


A   CONCEDED   WEAKNESS  OF  PROOF.  99 

crous  in  itself,  and  for  the  Church  in  whose  interests  it 
is  advanced,  destructive.  .  .  If  it  be  insisted  on  that 
by  Babylon  Peter  actually  meant  Rome,  then  to  Rome 
must  belong  the  character  and  doom  of  the  Apocalyptic 
Babylon." 

"  A  very  old  opinion,"  says  Lillie  on  1  Peter,  "  held 
likewise  by  nearly  all  Roman  Catholic  writers,  who 
would  thus  succeed,  though  under  a  bad  name,  in  get- 
ting New  Testament  evidence  of  Peter's  connection 
with  the  Imperial  City." 

"  It  is  singular,"  writes  Hovey,  Am.  Com.,  "  Roman 
Catholics  should  incline  to  apply  to  Rome  the  name  of 
such  a  city  as  Babylon,  but  it  is  intended  to  help  a 
theory  which  needs  all  possible  support." 

"If  Peter  was  at  Rome,  the  text  that  is  quoted  to 
show  it,  shows  that  Rome  is  delineated  in  Rev.  xviii." 
J.  Cummi'ng,  Hammersmith  Disc,  p.  507. 

The  strait  in  which  the  Church  of  Rome  is  placed  to 
secure  some  proof  from  Scripture  of  Peter's  Roman 
residence  is  evident  from  her  appeal  to  the  thirteenth 
verse  of  the  fifth  chapter  of  his  first  Epistle. 

If  we  mistake  not,  the  argument  works  somewhat  on 
the  principle  of  the  boomerang,  which  is  apt  to  return 
to  the  injury  of  the  one  who  uses  it. 

The  figurative  interpretation,  we  hold,  therefore,  to 
be  a  concession  on  the  part  of  Rome,  that  the  Word  of 
God  furnishes  no  rational  or  convincing  evidence  in 
support  of  her  supreme  spiritual  claim  upon  the  con- 
sciences of  men  ;  her  aflirmation,  with  anathema,  that 
there  is  no  salvation  beyond  her  jurisdiction,  founded, 
as  it  is,  on  the  supposition  that  the  Apostle  Peter  ruled 
in  Rome,  and  transmitted  the  Primacy  of  Christendom 
to  his  successors. 


CHAPTER  XI. 
IRome  not  JSabglon— arguments  of  JEngligb  Butbors. 

The  opinion  of  the  commentator  S.  T,  Bloomfield 
is  of  more  interest  and  value  from  the  fact  that  he  had 
been  led,  bj''  more  thorough  investigation,  to  change  his 
views. 

In  his  "  Recensio  Synoptica,"  published  in  1827,  8 
vols.,  he  accepts  the  traditional  view  that  Peter  by  Baby- 
lon meant  Rome.  We  quote  from  the  latest  edition  of 
Notes,  N.  Test.,  1855: 

"Of  the  city  here  intended,  no  little  diversity  of 
opinion  exists.  Some  suppose  Babylon  is  Egypt,  an 
opinion,  however,  highly  improbable  in  itself,  and 
which  has  been  completely  overturned  b\^  Lardner." 
He  tlien  states  that  the  figurative  interpretation  rests 
solely  on  a  tradition  of  Papias.     See  p.  75,  quoted  above. 

"  We  may,  indeed,  justly  regard  it  as  mere  notion, 
first  originating  in  error,  and  afterward  caught  up  by 
Romanists  for  the  purpose  of  supporting  their  asser- 
tion that  Peter  was  the  first  Bishop  of  Rome.  In  fact 
Calvin  has  almost  proved  to  a  demonstration  that  it 
cannot  mean  the  Church  of  Rome,  arguing  from 
Eusebius  and  others,  who  afiirm  it,  saying  what  is  contra- 
dictory and  does  not  hang  together,  as  involving  a  gross 
anachronism  :  whence  Calvin  is  warranted  in  arguing 
that  since  Peter  had,  when  he  wrote  the  Epistle,  Mark 
then  with  him,  as  a  companion,  it  is,  a  priori,  highly 

100 


ENGLISH  A  UTH0RITIE8.  1 0 1 

probable  that  he  wrote  the  Epistle  from  Babylon,  and 
hence  well  designates  that  Church  as  your  'Sister 
Church  of  Babylon.' 

"  The  best  founded  opinion  is,  I  apprehend,  that  of 
Erasmus,  Calvin,  Beza,  Lightfoot,  Cave,  Scaliger, 
Salmasius,  Le  Cierc,  Wettstein,  Bengel,  Benson,  Rosen- 
miiller,  A.  Clarke,  Steiger,  Dr.  Peile,  Wiesler,  and  Dr. 
Davidson,  that  it  means  Babylon  in  Assyria,  though 
they  are  not  agreed  whether  we  are  to  understand 
Seleucia,  i.  e.,  new  Babylon  or  old  Babylon.  .  .  There 
is  ever}'-  reason  to  think  that  Babylon  was  a  sort  of 
metropolis  of  the  Eastern  Dispersion  of  the  Jews,  Avhere 
a  great  number  of  them  had  gone  to  settle,  in  addition 
to  those  who  were  the  posterity  of  those  who  remained 
in  Babylon,  and  did  not  return." 

Of  our  next  authority.  Dean  Milma?^^,  Jackson's  Con- 
cise Dictionary  declares,  "  He  was  the  first  (and  is  still 
the  chief)  English  ecclesiastical  historian,  who  wrote 
simply  in  a  fair,  scientific  spirit,  not  holding  a  brief  for 
any  party  or  set  of  opinions." 

Milman  writes,  Hist.  Jews,  i.  160  :  "  This  Babylo- 
nian settlement  is  of  great  importance  in  Jewish 
history,  and  not  less,  perhaps,  in  Christian.  I  have  long 
held,  and  more  than  once  expressed,  a  strong  opinion 
that  the  Babylon  from  which  St.  Peter's  Epistle  was 
dated,  is  this  Babylonian  settlement. 

"  What  more  likely  tlian  that  the  Apostle  of  the  Cir- 
cumsion  should  place  himself  in  the  midst  of  his  brethren 
in  that  quarter,  and  address,  as  it  were,  a  pastoral  letter 
to  the  conterminous  settlement  in  Asia. 

"  It  must  have  been  to  these  Jews  dwelling  among  the 
Ano- Barbarous,  that  Josephus  wrote  the  first  version 
of  his  Jewish  War  in  tlieir  native  tongue  (Aramaic). 


102  WAS  PETER  EVER  AT  ROMEf 

It  shows  their  importance  at  the  period  immediately- 
after  the  Jewish  war,  even  to  a  man  so  highly  Roman- 
ized as  Josephus." 

W.  A.  Wright,  in  Smith's  Bib,  Diet.,  Hackett's  Ed., 
of  the  figurative  view,  says  :  "Although  this  opinion 
is  held  by  Grotius,  Lardner,  Cave,  Whitby,  Macknight, 
Hales,  and  others,  it  may  be  rejected  as  improbable. 
There  is  nothing  to  indicate  that  the  name  is  used 
figuratively,  and  the  subscription  to  an  Epistle  is  the 
last  place  we  should  expect  to  find  a  mythical  inter- 
pretation.   .    . 

"  The  most  natural  supposition  of  all  is  that  by  Bab- 
ylon is  intended  the  old  Babylon  of  Assyria,  which  was 
largely  inhabited  by  Jews  at  the  time  in  question 
(Joseph.  Ant.  xv.  3,  §  1.  Philo  de  Viri,  p.  1023,  Ed. 
Franc.  1691).  The  only  argument  against  this  view  is 
the  negative  evidence  from  the  silence  of  historians  as 
to  Peter's  having  visited  the  Ass^'rian  Babylon  ;  but 
this  remark  cannot  be  allowed  to  have  much  weight. 
Liglitfoot's  remarks  are  very  suggestive.  In  a  sermon 
preached  at  St,  Mary's,  Cambridge  (Wks,  ii.  1144),  he 
maintained  that  Babylon  of  Assyria  is  intended,  'be- 
cause it  was  one  of  the  greatest  knots  of  Jews  in  the 
world,'  and  St.  Peter  was  the  minister  of  the  Circum- 
cision. ,  .  Bentley  gave  his  suffrage  in  favor  of  the 
ancient  Babylon,  quoting  Josephus,  etc." 

Dean  Merivale,  Hist.  Rome,  substantiates  Light- 
foot's  statement  as  to  the  overwhelming  number  of 
Jews  in  that  region.  "  After  the  fall  of  Babylon  and 
the  distribution  of  its  people,  the  Jews,  if  we  may  be- 
lieve their  own  writers,  took  the  place  of  the  native 
races  throughout  the  surrounding  districts." 

Robertson,  Hist.  Christ.  Ch.,  i.  p.  2,  writes  :      "  St. 


ENOLISII  AUTHORITIES.  103 

Peter  is  said  to  have  founded  the  Church  at  Antioch, 
and  after  having  presided  over  it  for  seven  years,  to 
have  left  Euodias  as  his  successor,  while  he  himself 
penetrated  into  Partliia  and  other  countries  of  the  East, 
and  it  would  seem  more  reasonable  to  understand  the 
date  of  Babylon  in  his  first  Epistle  (v.  13)  as  meaning 
the  Eastern  city  of  that  name  than  as  a  mystical  designa- 
tion of  Pagan  Rome." 

In  Patrick  Fairbairn's  Imp.  Bib.  Diet,  we  read  : 
"  There  is  no  reason  why  Peter  should  have  disguised 
under  such  a  figurative  appellation  the  place  from  which 
he  wrote  his  Epistle  ;  and  in  an  Epistle  remarkable  for 
its  simplicity  and  directness  of  speech,  it  would  have 
been  a  sort  of  anomaly  to  fall  at  its  close,  upon  a  sym- 
bolical designation  of  his  place  of  residence  for  Avhich 
the  Epistle  itself  could  furnish  no  key,  and  which  is  also 
without  parallel  in  any  other  of  the  Epistles  of  the  New 
Testament." 

Of  Lawrence  Echard,  Dean  Prideaux  says  :  *'  The 
Ecclesiastical  History  of  Mr.  Lawrence  Echard  is  the 
best  of  its  kind  in  the  English  tongue."  In  Cent.  1, 
B.  IL,  Ch.  v.,  p.  200,  this  author  writes:  "Wliile  this 
great  Apostle  of  the  Uncircumcision  was  thus  diligently 
pursuing  his  ministry,  the  other  of  the  Circumcision, 
St.  Peter,  after  his  departure  from  Antioch,  preached 
the  gospel  to  the  tfeios  in  several  provinces  of  lesser 
Asia,  and  traveling  eastward  arrived  at  the  ancient  city 
Babylon  in  Chaldea,  above  seven  hundred  miles  east  of 
Jerusalem,  where  great  numbers  of  Jews  resided,  having 
a  famous  Academy  and  several  schools.  In  this  city  it 
is  probable  Silas  or  Silvanus  came  to  him,  leaving  Paul 
at  Ephesus,  and  having  the  evangelist  Mark  with  him. 
From  this  place  and  in  the  year  54,  as  Mr.  Dodwell 


104  WAS  PETER  EVER  AT  ROME? 

fairly  conjectures,  be  wrote  his  first  Epistle,  which  is 
called  a  catholic  or  general  Epistle." 

Rennel,  Geog.  Herod.  §  15,  testifies  to  the  abound- 
ing numbers  of  the  Babylonian  Jews:  "So  great  a 
number  of  Jews  was  found  in  Babylon  as  is  astonishing. 
Tliey  are  spoken  of  by  Josephus  as  possessing  towns 
and  districts  in  that  country  about  forty  j^ears  after 
Christ.     They  were  in  great  numbers  in  Babylon  itself." 

Salmond  writes  :  "  The  allegorical  interpretation  be- 
comes less  likely  when  it  is  observed  that  other  geo- 
graphical designations  in  this  Epistle  (ch.  i.  1)  have 
undoubtedly  the  literal  meaning.  The  tradition  itself, 
too,  is  uncertain." 

Wells,  in  Sacred  Geography,  p.  261,  alludes  to  an 
interesting  point,  the  connection  between  the  labors  of 
the  Apostles  Peter  and  Jude. 

"It  is  of  some  importance  to  know  that  the  Apostle 
Jude  labored  pretty  far  eastward  in  this  pious  work, 
because  it  contributes  to  account  for  the  similarity  of 
the  Epistle  with  some  parts  of  the  second  of  Peter, 
Avhich  seems  strongly  to  confirm  the  idea  that  they 
were  both  in  the  habit  of  addressing  the  same  kind  of 
people. 

"  In  fact  the  Oriental  style  of  imagery,  elevation,  and 
metaphor  which  they  adoj)t  is  altogether  conformable 
to  Eastern  usage,  and  marks  a  phraseology  to  which  the 
Western  world  reconciles  itself  with  difficulty,  and 
which  it  rarely  adopts  in  regular  and  correct  composi- 
tion." 

Bishop  Wordsworth,  on  the  Canon,  puts  the  argu- 
ment strongly  and  concisely  :  "Hence  w^e  see  why  Peter 
the  Apostle  of  the  Circumcision  went  to  Babylon,  in 
Parthian  Babylonia.     It  was  the  headquarters  of  those 


ENGLISH  A  UTHORITIES.  1 05 

whom  lie  had  addressed  with  such  wonderful  success  on 
the  day  of  Pentecost,  and  who  are  named  first  in  order 
by  the  inspired  historian  of  the  Acts. 

"  Hence  we  see  why,  being  at  Babylon,  St.  Peter  ad- 
dressed an  epistle  to  tlie  strangers  scattered  throughout 
Pontus,  Galatia,  Cappadocia,  Asia,  and  Bithynia.  They 
were  derived  from  Babylon.  They  were  co-elect  with 
the  Church  there." 

We  close  the  present  list  of  eminent  English  scholars 
with  the  venerated  name  of  Dean  Stanley,  who  thus 
eloquently  writes  :  "  Whether  the  Babylon  from  the 
neighborhood  of  which  the  Epistle  is  dated  be  the  city 
of  Mesopotamia,  or,  as  in  Rev.  xix.,  a  metaphorical  name 
for  Rome,  caimot  perhaps  be  settled  for  certain t3^  .  . 
On  the  whole  there  does  not  seem  sufficient  reason  for 
abandoning  the  literal  meaning  of  the  passage  ;  see 
Com.  Steiger,  Mayerhoff,  etc. 

"  We  catch  a  glimpse  of  St.  Peter  with  the  partner 
of  liis  labors  and  his  son  Mark,  far  awa^^  in  the  distant 
East,  by  the  waters  of  Babylon,  among  the  descendants 
of  those  who  long  ago  had  hung  their  harps  upon  the 
willows  that  are  there. 

"  It  was — if  we  take  the  most  probable  conjecture  as 
to  the  time  and  place  of  its  composition — it  Avas  now 
that  from  the  Euphrates  there  came  that  great  Epistle, 
addressed  to  all  the  Asiatic  Churches,  from  the  eastern 
hills  of  Pontus  down  to  the  cities  on  the  -^gean  Sea." 
— Serm.  Apost.  Age,  p.  91. 

A  few  brief  American  opinions  are  here  presented  : 

Edward  Robinson,  Bib.  Diet.,  Article  Peter  :  "  The 
Epistle  was  written  from  Babylon,  but  whether  the 
Egyptian  or  Chaldean  Bab^don  cannot  be  determined." 
Art.  Babylon  :  "  Some  critics  have  supposed  that  Peter 


106  WAS  PETER  EVER  AT  ROME? 

wrote  his  Epistle  from  this  Babylon,  but  we  have  no 
evidence  that  he  ever  was  in  Egypt,  and  probability 
tends  to  the  opposite  conclnsion." 

Professor  Stowe,  Bks.  Bibl.  399:  "It  is  only  the 
anxiety  of  some  to  give  Peter  a  long  residence  at  Rome, 
that  ever  imagined  here  a  spiritual  Babylon,  that  is 
Rome." 

McClintock  and  Strong  Enctl.:  "The  natural 
meaning  of  the  designation  Babylon  is  held  by 
Erasmus,  Calvin,  Beza,  Lightfoot,  Wiesler,  Mayerhoff, 
Bengel,  DeWette,  Bleek,  and  perhaps  the  majority  of 
modern  critics." 

Professor  Shedd,  Com.  Rom.  :  "  According  to  1 
Peter  v.  13,  Peter  is  connected  with  the  Church  in 
Bab3'loii  as  late  as  a.  d.  60, 

"That  this  is  the  literal  Babylon  is  favored  by  the 
fact,  that  the  first  Epistle  of  Peter  was  addressed  to 
the  Jewish  Church  in  Asia  Minor  (1  Pet.  i.  1),  whose 
condition  and  needs  could  liave  much  more  naturaHy 
come  under  the  eye  of  an  Apostle  on  the  banks  of  the 
Euphrates,  than  on  the  banks  of  the  Tiber." 

G.  H.  Whitney,  Hand-Book,  Bible  Geography : 
"  The  Babylon  of  1  Pet.  v,  1 3  doubtless  refers  to  an- 
cient Babylon,  a  portion  of  whose  ruins  was  long  occu- 
pied by  Jews." 


CHAPTER  XII. 
Diews  of  Continental  Timriters. 

Among  the  most  able  of  Biblical  commentators,  is  tlie 
well  known  John  David  Michaelis.  In  Lis  Intro- 
duction to  the  New  Testament  he  has  answered  the 
arguments  of  Dr.  Lardner,  one  of  the  most  strenuous 
defenders  of  the  figurative  interpretation.  Michaelis' 
opinion  is  of  special  weight,  inasmuch  as  he  was  of 
those  who,  like  Bloomfield  already  quoted,  changed 
their  view  after  more  thorough  investigation. 

He  writes  :  "  St.  Peter,  in  the  close  of  his  Epistle, 
sends  a  salutation  from  the  Church  at  Babylon,  which 
consequently  is  the  place  where  he  wrote  his  Epistle. 
But  commentators  do  not  agree  in  regard  to  the  word 
Babylon,  some  taking  it  in  its  literal  and  projjer  sense, 
others  giving  it  a  figurative  and  mystical  interpreta- 
tion. 

"Among  the  latter  have  been  men  of  such  learning 
and  abilities  that  I  was  misled  by  their  authority  in 
the  younger  part  of  my  life,  to  subscribe  to  it  ;  but  at 
present,  as  I  have  more  impartiall}'  examined  the  ques- 
tion, it  appears  to  me  very  extraordinary  that,  when  an 
Apostle  dates  his  Epistle  from  Babylon,  it  should  ever 
occur  to  any  commentator  to  ascribe  to  this  word  a 
mystical  meaning,  instead  of  taking  it  in  its  literal  and 
proper  sense." 

Describing  Babylon  and  Seleucia,  he  continues  :  "  In 

107 


108  WAS  PETER  EVER  AT  ROME? 

the  last  tu'o  editions  of  this  Introduction  I  preferred  the 
former  sense  :  but  after  a  more  mature  consideration, 
I  tliink  it  much  more  probable  at  present  that  St.  Peter 
meant  the  ancient  Babylon.  .  .  Before  I  conclude  this 
section  I  must  take  notice  of  a  j^assage  in  Josephus, 
which  not  onl}'  confutes  all  notions  of  a  spiritual  or 
mystical  Babylon,  but  throws  a  great  light  on  our 
present  inquiry  ;  and  this  passage  is  of  so  much  the 
more  importance,  because  Josephus  was  a  historian  who 
lived  in  the  same  age  with  St.  Peter." 

After  quoting  this  passage,  he  presents  Dr.  Lardner'8 
reasons  for  the  opposite  view  :  "  First,  There  were  no 
Jews  in  Babylon  in  the  time  of  Peter  ;  second,  That 
the  ancient  fathers  mostly  explain  the  word  figura- 
tively ;  third,  No  mention  is  made  of  Peter's  journey 
to  Babylon  ;  fourth,  Peter's  charge  to  '  honor  the  king,' 
which  must  have  meant  the  Roman  Emperor."  These 
arguments  Michaelis  thoroughly  examines. 

He  thus  concludes  :  "  It  appears  then  that  the  argu- 
ments which  have  been  alleged  to  show  that  St.  Peter 
did  not  write  his  first  Epistle  in  tlie  country  of  Baby- 
lonia are  without  foundation,  and  consequently  the 
notion  of  a  mystical  Babylon,  as  denoting  either  Jeru- 
salem or  Rome,  loses  its  whole  support. 

"  For  in  itself  tlie  notion  is  highly  improbable  ;  and, 
therefore,  the  bare  possibility  that  St.  Peter  took  a 
journey  to  Babylon,  properly  so  called,  renders  it  inad- 
missible. The  plain  language  of  epistolary  writing 
does  not  admit  of  the  figures  of  poetry  :  and  though 
it  would  be  very  allowable  in  a  poem  written  in  honor 
of  Gottingen,  to  style  it  another  Athens,  it  would  be  a 
greater  piece  of  pedantry  tlian  was  ever  laid  to  the 
charge   of    the    learned.     In    like    manner,   though   a 


VIEWS  OF  CONTINENTAL  WRITERS.  109 

figurative  use  of  the  word  Babylon  is  not  unsuitable 
to  the  animated  and  poetical  language  of  tlie  Apoca- 
lypse, yet  St.  Peter,  in  a  plain  and  unadorned  Epistle, 
would  hardly  have  called  the  place  where  he  wrote  by 
any  other  appellation  than  that  which  literally  and 
properly  belonged  to  it." 

Dr.  Adam  Clarke,  who  quotes  in  his  Com.  on  1 
Peter  the  entire  argument  of  Michaelis,  thus  remarks 
upon  it  :  "Tliat  many  persons,  both  of  learning  and 
eminence,  have  been  of  a  different  opinion  from  Pro- 
fessor Michaelis,  the  intelligent  reader  is  well  aware  ; 
but  Dr.  Lardner,  of  all  others,  has  written  most  argu- 
mentatively  in  vindication  of  the  mystic  Babylon,  i.  e., 
as  being  the  place  from  which  the  Apostle  wrote  this 
Epistle.  His  weightiest  arguments,  however,  are 
answered  by  Michaelis  ;  and  to  me  it  appears  that 
there  is  a  great  balance  in  favor  of  the  opinion  that 
Babylon  on  the  Euphrates  is  the  place  intended.  The 
decision  of  this  question,  though  not  an  article  of  faith, 
is  nevertheless  of  some  importance." 

He  elsewhere  writes  :  "  After  considering  all  that  has 
been  said  by  learned  men  and  critics  on  this  place,  I  am 
quite  of  the  opinion  that  the  Apostle  does  not  mean  Baby- 
lon in  Egypt,  nor  Jerusalem,  nor  Borne,  as  figurative 
Babylon,  but  the  ancient  celebrated  Babylon  in  Assyria." 

Witli  respect  to  Dr.  Lardner,  Kitto  says  :  "  Lardner's 
principal  argument  that  the  terms  of  tlie  injunction  to 
loyal  obedience  (ii.  13, 14,)  implj^  that  Peter  was  -within 
the  bounds  of  the  Roman  Empire,  proves  nothing  ;  for 
as  Davidson  remarks,  '  the  phrase  "the  king"  in  a 
letter  written  by  a  person  in  one  country  to  a  person  in 
another,  may  mean  the  king  either  of  the  person  writ- 
ing, or  of  him  to  whom  the  letter  is  written.'  " 


110  WAS  PETER  EVER  AT  ROME? 

J.  OwEX,  vicar  of  Tlirussington,  writes  concerning 
Lardner's  tendency  to  credit  patristic  legends  :  "  Even 
sucli  a  man  as  Lardiier  seemed  unwilling  to  reject  this 
tale,  for  fear  of  lessening  the  credit  of  history,  evidently 
mistaking  the  ground  on  which  history  has  a  title  to 
credit." 

Francis  Turretin,  whose  works  Principal  Cunning- 
ham describes  as  being  "of  inestimable"  value,  has  also 
fully  argued  this  question.  This  author  was  of  a  remark- 
able family.  His  father  and  his  son,  like  himself,  were 
pastors  of  the  Italian  Congregation  at  Geneva,  and  were, 
moreover,  professors  at  the  Theological  Seminary  of 
that  city.  Turretin  argues  that  Peter  was  never  at 
Rome  :  (l)  from  the  silence  of  Luke  ;  (2)  from  that  of 
Paul  ;  (3)  from  tliat  of  Peter  ;  (4)  from  a  computation 
of  the  times  ;  (5)  from  the  distribution  of  work  between 
Paul  and  Peter  ;  (6)  from  tlie  chronolog}^ ;  (7)  from  the 
origin  of  tlie  tradition.  We  give  a  portion  of  his 
argument  : 

"  XI.  Possibly  Babylon,  concerning  which  John 
speaks  in  the  Apocalypse,  is  none  other  than  Rome, 
since  it  is  described  as  possessing  those  characteristics 
which  could  belong  to  no  other  city  ;  esj^ecially  because 
it  was  Seven-hilled,  and  at  that  time  held,  vested  in  the 
kings,  the  government  of  the  world  ;  it  does  not  follow 
that  this  same  is  to  be  understood  for  Babylon  (1  Peter 
V.  13)  '  the  Church  which  is  at  Babylon  saluteth  yon.' 
Because  John  wrote  a  prophecy,  and  therefore  spoke 
ambiguously  and  enigmatically,  but  Peter  wrote  as  a 
writer  of  history,  and  with  simplicity,  because  he  wrote 
a  letter  in  which  everytliing  was  narrated  in  a  manner 
clear  and  easily  comprehended. 

"  Nor  had  he  other  reasons  for  concealing  the  name 


VIEWS  OF  CONTINENTAL  WRITERS.  1 1 1 

of  the  city  than  Paul,  wlio  lets  it  be  openly  known  when 
he  writes  at  Rome.  And  it  is  a  singular  thing  that  the 
Papists  wish  to  understand  the  literal  Babylon  in  the 
Apocalypse,  which  was  written  in  an  ambiguous  and  pro- 
phetic manner,  and  to  take  figuratively  that  name  which 
was  mentioned,  merely  as  historical,  to  show  the  place 
where  the  letter  was  written.  Moreover,  there  is  no 
reason  why  he  should  have  designated  Rome  as  Baby- 
lon. Was  it  because  idols  were  worshiped  there  ?  But 
that  is  done  everywhere.  From  fear  lest  it  be  known 
where  he  was  working  ?  But  whence  such  extraordinary 
timidity  ?  Had  not  Paul  written  to  the  Romans,  and 
written  many  Epistles  at  Rome,  witliout  either  suppress- 
ing or  clianging  its  name,  but  freely  mentioning  it? 
Rome  is  principally  spoken  of  as  Babj^on  in  the  Apoc- 
alypse, on  account  of  the  spiritual  servitude  which  the 
Church  was  to  suffer  through  her.  It  cannot  be  said 
that  Rome  was  commonly  so  called.  John  mentions 
this  name  as  a  type  of  a  figure. 

"  Nor  should  the  testimony  of  Papias  and  those  Avho 
followed  him  convince  us  of  this,  for  it  is  of  trifling 
weight,  as  will  be  shown  afterward.  For  no  other  can 
be  designated  more  consistently  and  plainly  as  Babylon 
than  the  capital  of  the  Assvrians  and  Chaldeans,  which 
was  the  head  and,  center  of  government,  the  chief  city 
of  that  dispersion  to  which  Peter  wrote,  Pontus,  Gala- 
tia,  etc.,  whicli  had  aixf^ocXooTapuev,  and  many  of  the 
Circumcision,  the  care  of  which  belonged  to  Peter  and 
John. 

"  How  great  a  confluence  of  Jews  was  there  may  be 
evident  from  the  following  :  because  so  many  Jewish 
schools  were  removed  from  Palestine  to  Babylon,  whence 
is  the  Babylonian  name  Talmud. 


112  WAS  PETER  EVER  AT  ROME? 

"  Finally,  wlien  nothing  renders  it  necessary  to  depart 
f  I'om  the  i^roper  signification  of  the  text,  there's  no  need 
of  seeking  a  figurative  meaning,  for  the  literal  one 
remains.  Bellarmine  recognizes  this,  *  De  Eucharistica, 
Lib.  1,  Cap.  xii.'  " 

Turretin's  further  argument  will  be  found  in  the 
previous  chapter  on  Papias,  p.  75. 

Neander,  Hist.  Plant.  Christ.,  i.  573,  writes  :  "This 
Epistle  of  Peter  leads  us  rather  to  suppose  that  the 
scene  of  his  labors  was  in  the  Parthian  Empire,  for  as 
he  sends  salutations  from  his  wife  in  Babj'lon,  this 
naturall}^  suggests  the  conclusion  that  he  himself  was 
in  that  neighborhood.  .  .  It  appears,  then,  that  after 
Peter  had  found  a  suitable  field  of  exertion  in  the 
Parthian  Empire,  he  wrote  to  the  Churches  founded  by 
Paul  and  his  assistants  in  Asia,  an  Epistle,  which  is  the 
only  memorial  preserved  to  us  of  his  later  labors.  .  . 
The  opinion  of  the  Ancients  is  perfectly  arbitrar}^,  that 
under  this  name  (Babylon)  Rome  was  meant,  and  there 
is  nothing  against  our  supposing  that  an  inhabited  jDor- 
tion  of  the  immense  Babylon  was  still  left." 

We  give  Neander's  language  inasmuch  as  he  has  been 
claimed  as  holding  the  opposite  view. 

Steigee,  Intro.  Epis.  Pet.  i.  29  :  "  In  proof  that 
Peter  did  not  confine  his  activity  to  Palestine,  speaks 
also  the  Place  from  which  this  Epistle  is  written.  That 
this  is  not  to  be  understood  symbolically  for  a  designa- 
tion of  Rome  as  the  ancients  took  it  (Clem.  Alex,  in 
Euseb.  H.  E.  ii.  15),  is  now  admitted,  to  say  nothing  of 
similar  interpretations  (see  Bertholdt,  Hug,  etc.).  .  . 
By  Babylon  we  understand  Babylon  nar'  e^ox^v  (which 
is  also  regarded  as  probable  by  Neander,  etc.),  for,  had 
it  been  any  other,  a  mark  of  distinction  would  have 


VIEWS  OF  CONTINENTAL  WRITERS.  113 

been  the  more  nocessavy,  tlie  more  remote  and  unknown 
it  was."  Steiger  enters  fully  into  the  discussion  of  the 
questions  involved. 

GuERiKE,  Ch.  Hist,  translated  by  Professor  Shedd, 
p.  52:  "From  the  passage  1  Peter  v.  13,  if  tlie  name  of 
Babylon  be  taken  literallj'^,  as  the  character  of  the  Epistle 
warrants,  the  conclusion  is  justified  that  Peter,  attended 
by  Mark,  his  frequent  companion,  and  the  writer  of  the 
second  Gospel,  Avhicli  obtained  its  canonical  authority 
from  Peter,  bad  extended  his  labors  into  Persia,  where 
man}'-  Jews  had  taken  up  their  residence  ;  and  had 
chosen  this  part  of  Asia,  generally,  as  the  seat  of  his 
missionary  efforts  ;  from  here,  or  at  least  soon  after  his 
return  from  here,  about  the  year  60,  he  wrote  his  first 
Epistle." 

Presexse,  a  French  author,  in  his  *'  Apostolic  Age," 
p.  311,  writes:  "The  Epistle  of  Peter  was  written 
before  the  Apocalypse,  and  the  persecution  under  Nero, 
that  is  to  say  before  the  time  when  Pagan  Rome  was  to 
the  Church  what  Babylon  had  been  to  the  Jews  of  old. 
Up  to  this  time  the  Christians  had  had  much  more  to 
suffer  from  the  Jews  than  from  the  Gentiles.  It  is 
worthy  of  remark,  also,  that  the  st^'le  of  Peter  in  his 
Epistle  is  not  raised  to  the  lyric  tone  of  ancient 
prophecy,  and  its  conclusion  is  as  simple  as  possible. 
There  can,  then,  be  no  reason  for  attaching  a  far-fetched 
symbolic  meaning  to  a  designation  perfectly  clear  in 
itself. 

"  Peter  had  succeeded  in  founding  a  Church  in  Baby- 
lon ;  this  Church  had  become  a  center  of  light  to  all 
the  Jewish  colonj^  Silas,  one  of  the  companions  of 
Paul,  joined  Peter  at  Babylon,  and  the  description  given 
by  him   of  the   critical    condition  of  the    Churches  in 


114  WAS  PETER  EVER  AT  ROME? 

Asia  Minor  doubtless  led  the  Apostle  to  address  to 
them  a  letter  of  consolation. 

"  Persecution  was,  in  truth,  imminent  ;  like  a  violent 
tempest  it  was  giving  precursive  tokens  of  its  approach, 
and  it  was  well  that  words  of  earnest  exhortation  should 
be  multiplied  on  the  eve  of  so  terrible  a  conflict.  Peter 
pleaded  with  holy  eloquence,  magnif3'ing,  like  Paul, 
the  greatness  and  glory  of  Christian  endurance,  and 
himself  preparing  to  seal  with  his  blood  his  witness  to 
the  truth." 

Reuss,  of  the  same  nation  as  the  last  author.  Hist.  N. 
Test.,  is  of  much  the  same  mind  :  "The  idea  that  Baby- 
lon is  a  mythical  name  for  Rome  accords  neither  with 
the  spirit  of  the  Epistle,  nor  with  any  ecclesiastical 
combination  reaching  back  into  the  immediate  neigh- 
borhood of  the  Apocalyptic  period.  A  doctrinal  Epistle 
is  not  an  Apocalypse,  neither  is  it  demonstrated  nor 
probable  that  in  later  times  the  Apocalyptic  use  of  lan- 
guage, Avithout  intimation,  was  general)}'  accepted  among 
Christians. 

"The  persecutions,  as  they  are  described,  do  not  give 
the  impression  of  something  fierce  and  bloody  like  that 
of  Nero.  They  lend,  therefore,  no  support  to  a  com- 
position at  Rome  in  the  last  years  of  Nero.  .  .  That 
Peter  met  his  death  at  Rome  is  a  bare  possibility." 

We  close  this  chapter  of  authorities  with  the  convinc- 
ing evidence  of  three  pre-eminent  modern  authorities, 
in  support  of  the  view  of  the  vast  extent  of  the  field  of 
the  Apostolic  labors  among  the  Circumcision,  in  the 
neighborhood  of  the  Parthian  Babylon. 

Professor  Sciiurer,  Hist.  Jew.  People,  etc.,  vol.  i. 
pt.  ii.  p.  228,  remarks  :  "In  Mesopotamia,  Media,  and 
Babylon,  lived  the  descendants  of  the  members  of  the 


VIEWS  OF  CONTINENTAL  WRITERS.  115 

kingdom  of  tlie  ten  tribes,  and  of  the  kingdom  of 
Judah,  wlio  had  been  carried  away  thither  by  the  Cliai- 
deans  and  Ass3'rians.  .  .  Tlie  Jews  in  these  provinces 
were  numbered  not  by  thousands  but  by  millions. 

"Their  attitude  was  always  of  political  importance 
to  the  Empire.  Josephus  names  the  strong  cities  of 
Nebardea  and  Nisibis,  the  former  on  the  Euphrates,  the 
latter  in  the  valley,  as  the  chief  dwelling  places  of  the 
Babylonian  and  Mesopotaniian  Jews.  Around  Nisibis 
were  grouped  the  descendants  of  the  ten  tribes,  and 
around  Nebardea  the  descendants  of  the  tribes  of 
Benjamin  and  Judah." 

Dr.  Emanuel  Deutscii,  a  brilliant  Hebrew  schdlar, 
who  died  greatly  lamented  in  1873,  assistant  librarian  to 
the  British  Museum,  in  Kitto's  Encycl.  Alexander's  Ed., 
Art.  Dispersion,  writes :  "Foremost  in  the  two  or  three 
chief  groups  into  which  the  Jewish  Dispersion  had 
been  divided  stands  the  Babylonian,  embracing  the 
Jews  of  the  Persian  Empire,  into  every  part  of  which, 
Babylonia,  Media,  Susiana,  Mesopotamia,  Assyria,  etc., 
they  penetrated.  The  Jews  of  Babylonia  prided  them- 
selves on  the  exceptional  purity  of  their  language,  a 
boast  uniformly  recognized  throughout  the  nation. 
What  Judea,  it  was  said,  was  with  respect  to  the  dis- 
persion of  other  countries — as  pure  flour  to  dough — that 
Babylonia  was  to  Judea. 

"  Herod  pretended  to  have  sprung  from  Babylonian 
ancestors,  and  also  bestowed  the  high  priesthood  upon 
a  man  from  Babylon.  In  the  messages  sent  by  the 
Sanhedrim  to  the  whole  dispersion,  Babj'lonia  received 
the  precedence,  although  it  remained  a  standing  re- 
proach against  the  Babylonians  that  tliey  held  aloof 
from  the  national  cause  when  their  brethren  returned  to 


116  WAS  PETER  EVER  AT  ROME? 

Palestine,  and  thus  bad  caused  tlie  weakness  of  the 
Jewish  state ;  as,  indeed,  living  in  Palestine,  under  any 
circumstances,  is  enumerated  among  the  Jewish  ordi- 
nances. The  very  territory  of  Babylonia  was,  for  cer- 
tain ritual  purposes,  considered  to  be  as  pure  as  Pales- 
tine itself." 

Edersheim,  a  converted  Hebrew,  and  among  the  most 
valued  of  modern  writers,  in  his  "  Life  and  Times  of 
Jesus  the  Messiah,"  has  largely  dwelt  upon  this  topic. 
He  says  : 

"  Far  other  was  the  estimate  in  which  the  Baby- 
lonians were  held  by  the  leaders  of  Judaism.  Indeed, 
according  to  one  view  of  it,  Bab3'lonia,  as  well  as  Syria 
as  far  north  as  Antioch,  was  regarded  as  forming  part 
of  the  Land  of  Israel.  Every  other  country  was  con- 
sidered outside  '  the  Land,'  as  Palestine  Avas  called,  with 
the  exception  of  Babylonia,  which  Avas  reckoned  a  part 
of  it.    .    . 

"  It  was  just  between  the  Euphrates  and  the  Tigris 
that  the  largest  and  Avealtliiest  settlements  of  the  Jews 
were,  to  such  an  extent  that  a  later  writer  designated 
them  as  '  the  land  of  Israel.'  .  .  According  to  Josephus, 
with  whom  Pliilo  substantiallv  agrees,  vast  numbers, 
estimated  as  millions,  inliabited  the  Trans-Euphratic 
provinces.    .    . 

"Such  was  their  influence  that  as  late  as  the  j'ear 
40  A.  D.,  the  Roman  Legate  shrank  from  provoking 
tlieir  hostility.  .  .  After  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem 
tlie  spiritual  supremacy  of  Palestine  passed  to  Baby- 
lonia. .  .  Only  eight  days'  journey  separated  them 
from  Palestine.  And  every  pulsation  there  vibrated 
in  Babylonia.  It  was  aniong  the  same  community  that 
Peter  wrote  and  labored."     Vol.  i.  7-14. 


CHAPTER  XIII. 

(5ava33t's  Brgumcnt. 

In  February,  1872,  a  public  discussion  was  held  in 
Rome  on  the  question — "  Whether  the  Apostle  Peter 
had  visited  that  city."  Three  learned  priests  main- 
tained the  affirmative.  Three  Protestant  divines  con- 
tended for  the  negative.  At  the  head  of  the  latter  was 
Gavazzi,  a  converted  priest,  who  had  held  a  high 
official  position,  had  been  chaplain  to  Garibaldi's  army, 
and  had  acquired  much  fame  by  his  eloquence,  on  his 
visits  to  England  and  the  United  States. 

We  present  a  portion  of  Gavazzi's  argument :  "  The 
silence  of  the  Bible  upon  the  coming  of  Peter  to  Rome 
is  not  any  means  a  negative  proof,  but  a  positive  and 
most  explicit  one.  Cardinal  Bellarmine  says  that  silence 
is  a  positive  proof.  .  .  Let  us  look  at  some  parallel. 
Thiers,  for  instance,  does  not  say  a  word  in  his  '  History 
of  the  Consulate  and  Empire,'  of  Napoleon  having 
gone  to  Washington  in  America.  This  is  perhaps 
proof  that  he  went  there?  No,  quite  the  contrary. 
By  the  same  logic  it  might  be  said  that  Peter  never 
went  to  Rome. 

"  The  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  which  say  not  a  word  of 
the  coming  of  St.  Peter  to  Rome,  are  the  true,  official, 
authentic  history,  giving  a  particular  account  of  the 
development,  of  the  progress,  of  the  persecutions,  of 
the  triumphs  of  the  Church.     Their  aim  is  to  show  the 

117 


1 1 8  WA S  PETER  E  VEB  A  T  ROME  ? 

labors  of  tlie  Apostles.  These  Acts  are  a  legitimate 
impartial  account,  because  St.  Luke  was  inspired. 
How  could  he  be  silent  about  St.  Peter  going  to  Rome, 
when  he  speaks  of  so  many  other  cities  of  minor 
importance  ? 

"  He  says  he  went  to  Lydda,  to  Joppa,  to  Samaria, 
to  Csesarea,  to  Jerusalem  ;  why  should  he  not  also  have 
said  he  went  to  Rome,  if  he  really  went  there.  The 
Acts  of  the  Apostles  are,  in  short,  for  the  Apostles, 
what  Thiers'  account  of  the  Consulate  and  Empire  is 
for  Napoleon.  Would  it  have  been  possible  for  Thiers 
to  be  silent  about  Napoleon's  going  to  Moscow  ?  No. 
Well  then,  St.  Peter's  going  to  Rome  would  have  been 
a  thousand  times  more  important  for  the  Apostolate,  and 
the  Church,  than  Napoleon's  going  to  Moscow  for  tlie 
Empire, 

"  Our  adversaries  say  that  perhaps  the  going  of  St, 
Peter  to  Rome  is  not  mentioned  for  fear  of  compromis- 
ing him.  Fear?  No,  it  was  not  the  case  ;  because  when 
the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  were  written,  the  danger  was 
past.  I  resjiect  Peter  too  much  to  believe  that  he 
was  afraid,  Peter  was  not  a  coward  to  fear  martyrdom. 
Nor  did  Paul  reckon  him  as  such.  The  silence  of  Paul 
then  is  a  positive  proof  that,  during  the  time  he  was  in 
Rome,  St.  Peter  was  not  there." 

One  who  has  written  exhaustively  on  this  subject 
says  :  "  There  is  no  more  properly  historical  evi- 
dence that  Peter  visited  Rome  than  there  is  that 
General  Washington  visited  London,  or  Napoleon,  New 
York,  No  report,  rumor,  or  legend,  to  the  latter  effect, 
has  yet  been  heard  of.  It  is  too  soon.  There  is  time 
enough  fifty  years  hence.  ,  ,  If  history  is  to  be  made 
of  tropes,  bon-mots,  half  legends,  and  the  like  pliable 


OAVAZZrS  ARGUMENT.  119 

and  expansible  materials,  there  is  nothing  to  forbid  the 
expectation  that,  fifteen  centuries  hence,  a  colossal  statue 
and  magnificent  monument  may  mark  the  identical  spot 
where  George  Washington  stood  on  Tower  Hill,  and  a 
perpetual  anniversary  celebrate  the  arrival  of  Napoleon, 
attended  by  all  his  marshals,  in  New  York." 

Gavazzi  presents  an  original  argument  in  response  to 
his  antagonists  :  "  They  defy  us  to  find  a  prophecy 
which  would  allude  to  tlie  death  of  Peter  anywhere  else 
than  at  Rome,  Well  ?  the  prophecy  is  this.  Christ 
said  to  the  Pharisees  these  words  :  'Some  of  them  ye 
shall  crucify.'  Now  they  were  Jews,  who,  according  to 
the  words  of  Clirist,  were  to  crucify  some  of  his  disciples 
— not  the  Romans.  Well,  of  those  crucified,  there  were 
only,  according  to  the  Church,  Andrew  and  Peter  ; 
the  others  were  stoned  or  beheaded.  He  alluded  then  to 
these  two  :  these  two  were  the  'some'  meant  of  Christ. 

"The  crucifixion  of  Peter,  that  it  might  fulfill  the 
prophecy  of  Christ,  should  have  happened  by  the  hand 
of  the  Jews,  not  of  the  Romans,  at  least  in  a  country 
where  the  Jews  exercised  the  utmost  power.  Now  the 
Jews  in  Rome  had  no  power  of  this  kind.  In  Baby- 
lon ?  Yes,  it  was  possible  that  crucifixion  might  take 
place  there  ;  there  the  Jews  were  so  powerful  that  it 
is  known  that  some  Babjdonish  King  allowed  them  to 
have  a  high  priest.  At  Babylon  the  prophecy  of  Christ 
could  be  fulfilled,  at  Rome  it  could  not.  Besides,  the 
mode  of  Peter's  death — crucified  with  the  head  down- 
ward— is  not  Roman  :  it  is  a  punishment  in  use  among 
the  Parthians.  The  Romans  crucified  with  the  head 
upward,  and  then  broke  the  legs.  The  very  death  of 
Peter,  then,  is  a  proof  that  it  did  not  happen  at 
Rome." 


120  WAS  PETER  EVER  AT  ROME? 

This  conjecture  of  Gavazzi  is  well  wortliy  of  consider- 
ation. It  is  the  strongest  confirmation  of  the  tradition 
that  Peter  died  by  crucifixion.  The  interpretation  of 
our  Lord's  prediction  with  respect  to  tliis  Apostle,  in 
the  last  chapter  of  John's  Gospel,  "  when  thou  art  old 
another  shall  gird  thee  and  carry  thee  Avhither  thou 
wouldst  not,"  etc.,  that  it  signified  crucifixion,  is  simply 
a  conjecture.  Bacon  states.  Lives  of  Apos.,p.  254,  that 
Tertullian  originated  this  idea.  lie  says  ;  "The  rejec- 
tion of  the  forced  interpretation  is  by  no  means  a  new 
notion.  The  critical  Tremellius  long  ago  maintained 
that  the  verse  had  no  reference  whatever  to  a  prophecy 
of  Peter's  crucifixion,  though  he  probably  had  no  idea 
of  denying  that  Peter  did  actually  die  by  crucifixion. 
Among  more  modern  commentators  too,  the  prince  of 
critics,  Kuinoel,  wnth  wdiom  are  quoted  Semler,  Gurlitt, 
Schott,  utterly  deny  that  a  fair  construction  of  the 
original  will  allow  any  prophetical  idea  to  be  based 
upon  it. 

"The  critical  testimony  of  these  great  commentators 
on  the  true  and  just  force  of  the  words  is  of  the  very 
highest  value  :  because  all  received  the  tale  of  Peter's 
crucifixion  as  true,  having  never  examined  the  authority 
of  the  tradition,  and  not  one  of  them  pretended  to  deny 
that  he  Avas  really  crucified  .  .  .  they  therefore  pro- 
nounce it  as  merely  expressing  the  helplessness  and 
imbecility  of  extreme  old  age,  with  which  they  make 
every  word  coincide." 

Elsewhere  Bacon  forcibly  remarks  :  "  Take  a  common 
reader,  who  has  never  heard  that  Peter  Avas  crucified, 
and  it  would  be  hard  for  him  to  make  out  such  a  cir- 
cumstance from  the  bare  prophecy  given  by  John. 
Indeed  such  unbiased   impressions  of  the  sense  of  the 


GAVAZZrS  ARGUMENT.  121 

passage  will  go  far  to  justify  the  conclusion  that  the 
words  imply  nothing  but  that  Peter  was  destined  to 
pass  a  long  life  in  the  service  of  his  Master — that  he 
should,  after  having  worn  out  his  bodily  and  mental 
energies  in  his  devoted  exertions,  attain  such  an  extreme 
decrepit  old  age,  as  to  lose  the  power  of  voluntary 
motion  and  die  thus,  at  least,  without  necessai'ily  imply- 
ing any  bloody  mart^^'dom. 

"  Will  it  be  said  that  by  such  a  quiet  death  he  could 
not  be  considered  as  glorifying  God  ?  .  .  Was  not 
God  truly  glorified,  in  the  deaths  of  the  aged  Xavier, 
and  Elliot,  and  Schwartz,  or  the  bright,  early  exits  of 
Brainerd,  Mills,  Mart^'n,  Parsons,  Fisk,  and  hundreds 
whom  the  apostolic  spirit  of  modern  missions  has  sent 
forth  to  labors  as  devoted,  and  to  deaths  as  glorious  to 
God,  as  those  of  any  who  swell  the  deified  lists  of 
the  ancient  martyrologies  ?  The  whole  notion  of  a 
bloody  martyrdom,  as  an  essential  termination  to  the 
life  of  a  saint,  grew  out  of  a  Papistical  supersti- 
tion.   .    , 

"  All  those  writers  who  pretend  to  particularize  the 
mode  of  his  departure  connect  it  also  with  the  utterly 
impossible  fiction  of  his  residence  at  Rome,  on  which 
enough  has  been  already  said.  .  .  Peter  was  then  in 
Babylon,  far  beyond  the  vengeance  of  the  Coesar  :  nor 
was  he  so  foolish  as  ever  after  to  have  trusted  himself 
in  the  reach  of  a  perfectly  unnecessary  danger.  The 
command  of  Christ  was,  '  when  you  are  persecuted  in 
one  city,  flee  unto  another.'  The  necessarj^  and  un- 
questionable inference  from  which,  was,  that  when  out 
of  reach  of  persecution  they  should  not  willfully  go 
into  it.  This  is  a  simple  principle  of  Christian  action 
Avith   which   papist   fable-mongers   were   totally  unac- 


122  WAS  PETER  EVER  AT  ROMEf 

quainted,  and  they  thereby  afford  the  most  satisfactory 
proof  of  the  actions  and  motives  they  ascribe  to  the 
Apostles." 

We  may  justly  affirm  that  the  fables  about  Peter, 
which  were  mostly  concocted  to  aggrandize  a  par- 
ticular Church,  in  an  age  of  ignorance  and  consequent 
credulity,  are  based  on  a  principle  in  direct  antagonism 
to  the  commands  of  our  Lord,  and  forbid  us  reasonably 
to  believe  that  the  Apostle  Peter  would  journey  from 
his  abundant  and  legitimate  field  of  labor,  where  he  was 
protected  by  the  authorities,  and  at  great  personal  risk 
and  expense,  on  a  romantic  expedition,  to  terminate  at 
Rome,  by  a  violent  death,  needlessly,  his  life  and 
abounding  usefulness  in  preaching  the  Gospel  of  his 
Lord. 

There  is  no  testimony,  as  has  been  amply  shown, 
either  from  Scripture,  or  from  any  writer  within  a  cen- 
tury after  the  death  of  Peter,  that  he  ever  left  the 
East ;  nor  is  there  a  solitary  statement  on  record  since, 
which,  on  critical  examination,  as  will  be  made  evident, 
is  worthy  of  credit,  that  the  Apostle's  feet  ever  entered 
Rome. 

This  fabulous  transfer  of  Peter  from  Babylon  to 
Rome,  made  for  an  evident  purpose,  has  had  the  effect 
in  some  respects  of  dislocating  ecclesiastical  history. 
The  correction  of  the  error,  in  the  words  of  the 
learned  Lightfoot,  "The  consideration  that  Peter  ended 
his  da^^s  at  Babjdon,  is  very  useful,  if  my  judgment  fail 
not,  at  the  setting  out  of  ecclesiastical  story." 


CHAPTER  XIV. 

trbe  Bpostles  peter  anO  5obn. 

Professor  McDonald,  in  bis  commentary  on  St. 
John,  presents  a  reasonable  and  interesting  suggestion 
concerning  the  joint  work  of  tliese  two  Apostles.  On  p. 
138,  he  writes  :  "  It  appeal's  to  be  as  well  established  a 
fact,  not  recorded  in  the  Scriptures,  that  Peter,  follow- 
ing the  emigrants  and  colonists  of  his  own  nation, 
journeyed  Eastward,  and  made  the  Provinces  of  the 
Parthian  Empire,  and  the  regions  east  of  the  Euphrates, 
the  scene  of  his  labors. 

"The  number  of  Jews  in  the  city  of  Babylon,  and 
the  Provinces  around  it  had,  it  is  said,  been  increased  at 
this  time  to  such  a  degree  that  they  constituted  a  very 
large  portion  of  the  population.  (Joseph.  Antiq.,  xviii.) 
St.  Peter  would  be  led  to  follow  them  as  he  prosecuted 
his  Apostolic  work.  His  first  Epistle  seems  to  have 
been  written  from  Babylon,  and  is  addressed  to  the 
Christians  scattered  abroad,  beginning  with  Pontus,  the 
place  nearest  to  him  on  the  northeast  of  Asia  Minor. 
That  St.  Peter  uses  Babylon  in  a  metaphorical  sense  for 
Rome,  is  a  conjecture  which  has  few  supporters  among 
scholars. 

"Michaelis  (I.  D.)  very  ably  exposes  the  absurdity  of 
the  opinion  that  Peter  dates  from  ]?abylon  in  a  mystical 
sense.  And  as  Babylon  in  Egypt  was  a  mere  military 
station,  there  can   be   no   doubt   the    place   named   by 

123 


124  WAS  PETER  EVER  AT  ROME? 

Peter  Avas  the  ancient  Assyrian  or  Chaldean  Babylon,  or 
the  city  that  in  his  day  stood  on  its  site.  It  was  a  city 
of  great  importance  and  interest  in  a  religious  point  of 
view,  offering  a  most  ample  and  desirable  field  for  the 
labors  of  the  chief  Apostle,  now  advancing  in  years, 
and  whose  whole  genius,  feeling,  and  religious  education 
and  natural  peculiarities,  qualified  him  as  eminently  for 
this  Oriental  scene  of  labor,  as  those  of  Paul  fitted  him 
for  the  triumphant  advancement  of  the  Christian  Faith 
among  the  polished  and  energetic  races  of  the  mighty 
West.  With  Peter  went  also  others  of  the  Apostolic 
band."     Bacon's  Lives  of  the  Apostles,  p.  260. 

"  As  there  are  no  traces  of  John  in  any  other  direc- 
tion, it  is  not  improbable,  as  he  had  thus  far  been  so 
intimately  associated  with  Peter  in  Apostolic  labors  in 
Judea  and  Samaria,  they  were  not  separated  now;  at  least 
for  a  portion  of  the  time  Peter  was  in  the  Parthian 
dominions.  As  far  back  as  the  time  of  Augustine,  a.  d, 
398,  the  First  Epistle  of  John  Avas  known  as  the  Epistle 
to  the  Parthians.  He  quotes  1  John  iii.  2,  which  he  in- 
troduces, '  which  is  said  by  John  in  the  Epistle  to  the 
Parthians.' 

"It  seems  indeed  pleasant  to  contemplate  these  emi- 
nent Apostles,  'in  this  glorious  clime  of  the  East,'  amid 
the  scenes  of  that  Ancient  Captivity,  in  which  the  mourn- 
ing sons  of  Zion  had  drawn  consolation  and  support  from 
the  word  of  Prophecy,  Avhich  the  march  of  time  'in  its 
solemn  fulfillment,'  had  now  made  the  faithful  history  of 
God's  children  ;  amid  the  ruins  of  Empires,  and  natural 
wrecks  of  ages,  attesting,  in  the  dreary  desolation,  the 
surety  of  the  word  of  God." 

This  view  of  McDonald  and  others,  that  Parthia  was 
the  scene  of  the  Apostolic   labors   of   these   foremost 


THE  APOSTLES  PETER  AND  JOHN.  125 

ministers  to  the  circuincisioii,  is  rendered  the  more  prob- 
able from  the  security  then  enjoyed  both  by  Jew  and 
Christian  in  that  kingdom. 

W.  C.  Taylor,  in  his  Man'I.  Anc.  Hist.,  p.  167,  says  : 
"  After  Christianity  began  to  spread,  its  progress  was 
tolerated,  if  not  directly  encouraged,  by  the  Parthian 
monarchs,  who  liberally  offered  shelter  to  Christians 
flying  from  the  persecutions  of  the  Pagans,  and  we  must 
add,  from  those  of  their  brethren  who  belonged  to  a  dif- 
ferent sect." 

Gkeenwood,  Cath.  Petri.  II.  viii,  confirms  this  state- 
ment of  the  tolerant  spirit  of  this  people,  when  he  refers 
to  "  that  degree  of  repose  and  social  dignity  which,  we 
are  authentically  informed,  the  Jews  of  Babylonia  for 
ages  afterward  enjoyed,  under  the  patronage  of  the 
Parthian  and  Persian  sovereigns." 

Again,  he  writes,  vol.  i.  244  :  "  When  Ave  take  into 
account  that  Peter's  mission  was  to  those  of  the  Cir- 
cumcision, as  Paul's  was  to  those  of  theUncircumcision; 
it  is  most  natural  to  suppose  that  they  bore  their  testi- 
mony, where  it  was  most  likely  to  continue  prudential — 
the  conversion,  to  wit,  of  Gentiles  by  Paul,  and  of  Jews 
by  Peter.  .  .  We  cannot  therefore  help  thinking  it  far 
more  probable  that  Peter  suffered  in  the  Mesopotamian 
capital,  than  that  he  traveled  in  the  latest  period  of  his 
life  to  Rome,  to  partake  the  honor  of  martrydom  with 
his  colleague  Paul.  " 

The  tolerance  of  the  Parthian  authorities  is  confirmed 
b}^  Dr.  Wm.  Smith  in  his  New  Testament  History,  p. 
636,  Am.  ed.,  where  he  says  :  "  If  we  suj^pose  that  Peter 
was  visiting  his  Jewish  brethren  of  the  Eastern  Disper- 
sion, there  is  no  place  which  he  would  be  more  likely  to 
make  the  goal  and  headquarter  of  such  a  tour.     Baby- 


126  WAS  PETER  EVER  AT  ROME? 

Ion  was  at  that  time,  and  for  some  hundreds  of  years 
afterward,  a  chief  seat  of  Jewish  culture.  Under  the 
tolerant  rule  of  the  Parthians  the  Jewish  families  formed 
a  separate  and  wealthy  community  ;  and  thence  they 
had  spread  to  many  of  the  districts  of  Asia  Minor,  to 
which  the  Epistle  was  addressed.  Their  intercourse 
with  Judea  was  uninterrupted  ;  and  their  language, 
probably  a  mixture  of  Hebrew  and  Nabatean,  must  have 
borne  a  near  affinity  to  the  Galilean  dialect." 

John's  epistle  to  the  parthians. 

With  respect  to  tlie  visit  of  John  to  Parthia,  where  it  is 
so  reasonable,  and  higlily  probable,  that  he  labored  for 
so  many  years  with  Peter  as  his  colleague,  we  find  Bede 
quoting  Athanasius  as  giving  to  John's  first  Epistle  the 
title,  "  To  the  Parthians."  Many  writers  have  adopted 
the  same  view  ;  among  them  the  learned  Mill  (in  Pro- 
legom.  in  Joan.  N.  T,  §  150).  He  expresses  himself 
fully  in  favor  of  the  view  that  John  passed  the  greater 
part  of  his  life  among  the  Parthians  and  the  believers 
near  them.  Lampe  (Prolegom.  in  Joan.  Lib.  1.  cap. 
iii.  §  12,  note)  favors  that  supposition. 

Grotius,  Ainiot.  Prolegom.,  suggests  "  that  the 
Epistle  was  written  to  trans-Euphratic  converted  Jews, 
who  were  Parthian  subjects,  and  forwarded  to  them  by 
Epiiesian  merchants  :  but  that  the  cautious  Ajjostle, 
foreseeing  tliat  such  a  correspondence  of  Ephesian  Chris- 
tians with  a  hostile  country,  if  discovered,  would  be 
hurtful  to  Christians  in  the  Roman  Empire  in  general, 
omitted  the  usual  beginning  and  conclusion." 

Jesuit  missionaries  in  1555  found  a  tradition  in  India, 
among  the  Bassoras,  that  this  same  Apostle  presented 
the  Gospel  in  that  region.     Baronius  (Ann. -44.  §  30). 


JOHN'S  EPISTLE  TO   THE  PARTHIANS.         127 

As  this  is  a  matter  of  profound  interest,  tlirowing  liglit 
on  the  careers  of  the  two  foremost  Apostles  Peter  and 
John,  we  give  the  satisfactory  language  of  D.  F.  Bacon, 
in  his  Lives  of  the  Apostles,  the  most  complete  work  in 
English  on  the  subject.  He  sa3's,  p.  308  :  "It  has  been 
considered  extremely  probable,  b}''  some,  that  John 
passed  many  years,  or  even  a  great  part  of  his  life,  in 
the  regions  east  of  the  Euphrates,  within  the  bounds  of 
the  great  Partliian  empire,  Avhero  a  vast  number  of  his 
refugee  countr^nnen  had  settled  after  the  destruction  of 
Jerusalem  ;  enjoying  peace  and  prosperity,  partly  for- 
getting their  nationalcalamities,  in  building  themselves 
up  into  a  new  people,  beyond  the  bounds  of  the  Roman 
Empire.  These  would  afford  to  liim  an  extensive  and 
congenial  field  of  labor  :  they  were  his  countrj'men, 
speaking  his  own  language,  and  to  them  he  was  allied 
by  the  sympathies  of  a  common  misfortune  and  a  com- 
mon refuge. 

"  Abundant  proof  lias  already  been  offered  to  show 
that  in  this  region  was  the  home  of  Peter,  daring  the 
same  period  ;  and  probabilities  are  strongly  in  favor  of 
the  supposition  that  the  other  Apostles  followed  him 
thither,  making  Babjdon  the  new  Apostolic  capital  of 
the  Eastern  churches,  as  Jerusalem  had  been  of  the  old 
one.  From  tliat  city  as  a  center,  the  Apostles  could 
naturally  extend  their  occasional  labors  into  the  coun- 
tries eastward,  as  far  as  tlieir  Jewish  brethren  had 
spread  their  refugee  settlements  ;  for  beyond  the  Roman 
limits,  Christianity  seems  to  have  made  no  progress  what- 
ever among  the  Gentiles  in  the  time  of  the  Apostles. 

"  If  there  had  been  no  other  difficulties,  the  great  dif- 
ference of  language  and  manners,  and  the  savage  condi- 
tion of  most  of  the   races  around  them,  would  have  led 


128  WAS  PETER  EVER  AT  ROME? 

them  to  confine  their  labors  wliolly  to  those  of  their  own 
nation,  who  inhabited  the  country  watered  bj' the  Eu- 
phrates and  its  branches  :  or  still  farther  east,  to  lands 
where  the  Jews  seem  to  liave  spread  themselves  on  the 
banks  of  the  Indus,  and  perhaps  within  the  modern  boun- 
daries of  India." 

A  most  interesting  confirmation  of  the  spread  of  the 
Gospel  in  the  East  comes  from  the  Egyptian  author  of 
the  sixth  century,  Cosmas  Ixdico-Pleustes  of  Alexan- 
dria, A.  D.  535.  Dr.  Lardner,  vol.  v.  57,  writes  of  him  : 
"Cosmas  quotes  the  conclusion  of  the  First  Epistle  of 
Peter,  'the  Church  which  is  at  Babylon  saluteth  you,' 
as  a  proof  of  the  early  progress  of  the  Christian  religion 
without  the  bounds  of  the  Roman  Empire,  by  which, 
therefore,  we  perceive,  he  had  not  understood  Rome, 
p.  101.  He  mentions  a  great  many  countries  remote 
from  each  other,  where  the  Gospel  liad  been  planted  ; 
and  particularly,  several  places  in  the  Indies,  where  he 
had  been,  in  which  were  many  churches.  He  expressly 
says  that  '  in  Persia  were  many  churches  and  bishops, 
and  people,  and  many  martyrs  ;  as  also  in  Ethiopia  and 
Arabia.' " 

JOHN    IN    BABYLON. 

With  reference  to  the  Apostle  John,  who,  as  the 
loved  of  the  Lord,  the  appointed  guardian  of  his 
mother,  as  well  as  from  his  writings  and  character,  is 
especially  dear  to  all  Christians  ;  we  have  seen  how  little 
is  known  of  his  history  and  labors  after  the  meeting  of 
the  Council  at  Jerusalem,  a.  d.  50.  By  far  the  most 
probable  supposition  is,  as  already  stated,  that  he  la- 
bored with  Peter  in  the  center  of  the  Jewish  population 
in  Babylon. 


JOHN  IN  BABYLON.  129 

In  charge  of  her,  most  "blessed  of  women,"  he  would 
naturally  seek  the  most  favored  spot,  where  life  was 
safest,  and  the  surroundings  most  desirable.  With 
Peter  and  his  household,  too,  would  be  congenial  society. 

There  is  nothing  against  this  supposition,  while  there 
is  much  in  its  favor.  We  are  justified,  therefore,  in 
regard  to  John,  in  contemplating  him  in  Babylon,  till  he 
went  to  Ephesus.  We  again  quote  from  Bacon,  p.  313, 
his  sensible  and  eloquent  words.  "  Where  there  is  such  a 
want  of  all  data,  any  fixed  decision  is  out  of  the  question  ; 
but  it  is  very  reasonable  to  suppose  that  John's  final 
departure  from  the  East  did  not  take  place  till  some 
years  after  this  date  ;  probabh'^  not  till  the  time  of 
Domitian  (a.  d.  81  or  82).  He  had  lived  in  Babylon, 
therefore,  till  lie  had  seen  most  of  his  brethren  and 
friends  pass  away  from  before  his  eyes.  The  venerable 
Peter  had  sunk  into  the  grave,  and  had  been  followed 
by  the  rest  of  the  Apostolic  band  ;  until  the  youngest 
Apostle,  now  grown  old,  found  himself  standing  alone  in 
the  midst  of  a  new  generation,  like  one  of  the  solitary 
columns  of  desolate  Babylon,  among  the  low  dwelling 
places  of  its  refugee  inhabitants.  But  among  the  hourly 
crumbling  heaps  of  that  ruined  city,  the  fast  darkening 
regions  of  that  half-savage  dominion,  there  was  each 
year  less  and  less  around  him  on  which  his  precious 
labor  could  be  advantageously  expended. 

"  Among  the  subjects  of  the  Parthian  Empire,  this 
downward  movement  was  already  fully  decided  ;  they 
were  fast  losing  those  refinements  of  feeling  and  thought 
on  which  the  new  faith  could  best  fasten  its  spiritual  and 
refining  influences  ;  they  there  soon  became  but  hope- 
less objects  to  missionary  exertion,  when  compared  with 

the  active  and  enterprising  inhabitants  of  the  still  im- 
10 


130  WAS  PETER  EVER  AT  ROME? 

proving  regions  of  the  west.  '  Westward,'  then, '  the  star  ' 
of  Christianity  as  'of  empire  took  its  way';  and  the 
last  of  the  Apostles  was  but  following,  not  leading,  the 
march  of  his  Lord's  advancing  dominion,  when  he  shook 
the  dust  of  the  darkening  lands  from  his  feet  forever, 
turning  his  aged  face  toward  the  setting  sun,  to  find,  in 
his  latter  days,  a  new  home  and  a  foreign  grave  among 
the  children  of  liis  brethren  ;  and  to  rejoice  his  old  eyes 
with  the  glorious  light  of  what  God  had  done  for  the 
cliurches  among  the  flourishing  cities  of  the  west,  that 
were  still  advancing  under  Grecian  art  and  Roman 
sway." 

S.  R,  Green,  in  his  Lifeof  St. Peter, p.  125,  also  alludes 
forcibly  to  the  decline  of  this  region  :  "This  interpre- 
tation also  accounts  for  the  fact  that  the  records  of  the 
Apostles'  latter  days  have  perished.  The  memorials  of 
those  Eastern  lands  have  passed  away  with  the  races 
which  inhabited  them.  No  literature  survives  from 
those  once  favored  regions.  Modern  history  has  almost 
nothing  to  tell  of  them,  but  that  they  were  made  deso- 
late by  war  ;  and  the  cradle  of  the  human  race,  once 
fondlj'  chosen  as  the  rallj'ing  point  for  mankind,  has  for 
ages  been  a  solitary  waste.  But  one  memorial  of  that 
melancholy  land  shall  survive  to  all  time.  For  there  it 
was  that  the  Apostle  Peter,  before  he  passed  away  from 
earth,  Avrote  his  first  great  epistle  to  the  scattered 

CHURCHES." 


CHAPTER  XV. 
Zbc  SeconD  Bpletic  of  Jobn.   XLo  wbom  BDDresscD  1 

An  examination  of  the  Secoud  Epistle  of  the  Apostle 
John  may  serve  to  throw  further  light  on  this  deeply 
interesting  question,  with  respect  to  the  field  of  labor  of 
the  beloved  disciple.  We  have  noticed  the  tradition  with 
respect  to  the  most  reasonable  supposition,  that  John 
labored  with  Peter  among  the  vast  myriads  of  the  Cir- 
cumcision of  Babylon  and  its  neigliborhood,  under  the 
protection  of  the  Parthian  rulers. 

The  language  of  the  Second  Epistle  suggests  that  it 
was  written  by  the  Apostle  to  another  (7/i«/rc/i,  probably 
one  in  the  further  East,  in  whi^h  he  had  previously 
labored.  We  present  the  views  of  highly  learned  men 
on  this  question. 

Davidsox,  Intro.  N.  Test.,  p.  319,  says  :  "  The  words 
refer  to  a  particular  Christian  Church,  to  the  JElect 
Ckurch.  Even  Jerome  referred  uvpia  to  the  Church 
generally ;  and  though  the  word  occurs  nowhere  else 
in  this  sense,  it  is  natural  for  the  Christian  Church  to 
be  called  so,  because  of  its  relation  to  the  Lord  [uvpioi). 
The  children  are  the  individual  members  of  the  Church. 
The  contents  of  the  letter  agree  best  with  the  figurative 
sense.  There  is  no  individual  reference  to  one  person  ; 
on  the  contrary  the  children  '  walk  in  truth  '  ;  mutual 
love  is  enjoined  them  as  an  admonition,  'Look  to  your- 
selves,' and  tlie  bringing  in  of  '  doctrine  '  is  mentioned. 
Besides  it  is  improbable  that  the  children  of  an  elect 

131 


132  WAS  PETER  EVER  AT  ROME? 

sister  would  send  a  greeting  by  the  writer  to  an  '  elect 
Kyria  '  and  her  children.  A  sister  church  might  natu- 
rally salute  another." 

Bishop  LiGHTFooT,  Epist.  Col.  and  Phil.,  p.  305,  re- 
marks: "The  '  salutation  '  to  the  'elect  lady  '  (verse  ii) 
from  her  'elect  sister'  (verse  13)  will  then  be  a  greeting 
sent  to  one  church  from  another  ;  just  as  in  1  Pet.  the 
letter  is  addressed  at  the  outset  £hX€htoi?  Uovtov,  h. 
T.  A.  (i.  1),  and  contains  at  the  close  a  salutation  from 
£v  BaftvXoovi  avveHXeuT?)  (v.  13)  ...  I  take  the 
view  that  the  Kvpia  addressed  in  the  Second  Epistle  of 
John  is  some  church 2:>ersonified.  The  whole  tenor  of  the 
Epistle  seems  to  imply  this,  especially  verses  4-7,  seq." 

DoLLiNGER,  second  to  none  in  learning  in  this  cen- 
tury, also  gives  his  assent  to  the  view  that  a  church  is 
here  addressed.  He  says  :  "First  Age  of  the  Church," 
i.l98  :  "The  Second  !^jipistle  gives  us  the  impression  of 
being  addressed  to  a  Community,  for  if  a  private  family 
were  signified  by  '  the  elect  lady  and  children,'  the 
writer  could  not  liave  said  that  not  only  he,  but  all  who 
knew  the  truth,  loved  the  children  of  this  elect  one. 

"It  is  then  a  Community  or  part  of  one  that  is  spoken 
of  :  the  Apostle  rejoices  that  they  walk  in  the  truth, 
and  warns  them  against  false  teachers  who  deny  Christ's 
appearance  in  the  flesh." 

This  interpretation  is  adopted  also  by  Cassiodorus, 
Calov,  Hammond,  Hoffman,  Mayer,  Huther,  Augusti, 
Baur,  and  Ewald. 

BISHOP  Wordsworth's  argument. 

No  one  has,  probably,  discussed  this  question  more 
full}'^,  more  ingeniously,  and  intelligently  than  Bishop 
Wordsworth,  on  the  Canon,  226-232  : 


THE  SECOND  EPISTLE  OF  JOHN.  133 

"  Let  me  liere  desire  j^our  attention  to  a  remarkable 
connection  between  the  First  Epistle  of  St.  Peter,  and 
the  Second  of  St.  John. 

"  The  First  Epistle  of  St.  Peter,  as  appears  from  its 
commencement,  is  addressed  to  the  '  Elect,''  scattered 
throughout  Pontus,  Galatia,  Cappadocia,  Asia,  and 
Bithynia  :  that  is,  to  the  Jews  dispersed  in  Asia  Minor  : 
and  at  its  close  we  read '  The  Church  that  is  at  Babijlon, 
elected  together  with  you,  salute  you  and  so  doth  Mar- 
cus my  son.' 

"  The  Second  Epistle  of  St.  John  begins  thus  :  *  The 
Elder  to  the  Elect  Lady  and  her  children  wliom  I  love 
in  the  truth  :'  and  it  ends  with  the  words,  '  The  chil- 
dren of  thine  Elect  Sister  greet  thee.' 

"  You  are  aware  that  it  has  been  doubted  ichat  place 
the  Babylon  was  from  which  St.  Peter  wrote  :  and  also 
whether  the  Elect  Lady  to  whom  St.  John  wrote  was  a 
person  or  a  church. 

"  If  I  may  venture  to  offer  an  opinion  on  these  con- 
troverted points,  it  seems  to  me  that  both  these  questions 
may  be  determined  at  once  ;  and  that,  by  the  solution 
of  them,  we  gain  an  important  result  with  respect  to 
the  Canon  of  the  New  Testament. 

"  In  some  ancient  manuscripts,  St.  John's  ^/rs^  Epistle 
is  inscribed  ad  Parthos — to  tlie  Parthians — and  as  is 
probable  from  earlier  authorities,  as  well  as  from  inter- 
nal evidence,  this  inscription  belongs  to  St.  John's 
Second  Epistle,  as  well  as  the  First.  For  the  Lathi 
Translator  of  a  work  of  Clement  of  Alexandria  (the 
Greek  original  of  which  is  not  now  extant)  says, 
*  Secunda  Johannis  Epistola,  quoe  ad  Vlrgines  inscripta 
est,  simplicissima  est.'  It  has  been  well  conjectured 
that  St.  Clement    wrote    Ttpo'?  UapS'ov?  (ad  Parthos) 


134  WAS  PETER  EVER  AT  ROME? 

which  was  corrupted  into  Trpo?  Uap^svov?,  whence  the 
Latin.  Translator  wrote  '  ad  Vlrgines  '/  and  this  is  almost 
certain  from  tlie  fact  that  none  of  St.  Jolm's  Epistle  is 
addressed  to  Virgins  ;  and  St.  Clement  himself  says 
that  the  Second  Epistle  was  written  to  a  certain  Babylo- 
nian, and  that  the  word  Electa,  the  Elect  Lady,  inti- 
mates the  election  of  a  Church.  St.  Jei'ome  gives  the 
same  meaning  of  the  word  Electa  ;  he  applies  it  to  a 
church  ;  and  this  is  still  further  confirmed  by  the  word 
Kvpia,  or  Lady,  which  is  very  appropriate  to  a  church 
{Kvpiaiaj)  as  connected  with  Kvpio?,  the  Lord. 

"But  what  is  to  be  said  of  the  Avord  Babylonia,  to 
whom  St.  Clement  affirms  St.  John  wrote  an  Epistle  ; 
and  how  is  it  to  be  connected  with  the  inscription  "  Ad 
Parthos  ' — to  the  Parthians  ? 

"  I  would  suggest  the  following  reply  : 

"  St.  Peter  was  the  Apostle  of  the  Jews,  and  he  was 
the  beloved  fellow  Apostle  of  St.  John  ;  he  addresses 
his  First  Epistle  to  the  Jews  of  the  Asiatic  dispersion  ; 
that  is,  to  those  of  St.  John's  peculiar  province  :  and  he 
closes  his  Epistle  with  the  salutation.  '  Your  co-elect 
Sister  Church  at  Babylon  salutes  you  and  so  doth  Mar- 
cus my  son,'  And  St.  John,  the  brother  Apostle  of  St. 
Peter,  Elect  together  with  him — St.  John,  specially 
loved  by  Christ,  as  Christ  was  specially  by  St.  Peter — St. 
John  the  Metropolitan  of  the  Elect  of  Asia,  wdiom  St. 
Peter  had  addressed,  writes  to  the  Elect  Lady  and  her 
children,  xohom  he  loves  in  the  truth,  and  he  closes  his 
Epistle  with  the  salutation, '  The  children  of  thine  Elect 
Sister  greet  thee.' 

" ''  The  Elect  I^ady^  I  believe  was  the  Churcli  of 
Babylon,  and  the  '  Elect  Sister '  the  Asiatic  Church. 

"  Hence  St.  Clement  says  that  St.  John  writes  to  a 


THE  SECOND   EPISTLE  OF  JOHN.  135 

Babylonian  Electa,  signifj'ing  an  Elect  Chnreh  •  and 
also  according  to  the  conjecture  already  mentioned  to 
tlie  Parthians,  of  whose  empire,  as  it  then  existed, 
Babylon,  it  must  be  remembered,  was  the  most  cele- 
brated city — as  far  as  the  Jews  and  their  history  are 
concerned.     Hence,  Milton  thus  speaks  : 

There  Babylon  the  wonder  of  all  tongues. 

All  these  the  Parthian  holds  ! 

"  Babylon  was  the  city  to  which  the  tioo  tribes  were 
carried  away  captive,  and  from  which  those  of  the 
Asiatic  dispersion,  to  whom  St.  Peter  writes,  were  de- 
rived ;  and  we  know,  from  Philo  and  Josephus,  that 
Babylon  contained  a  great  many  Jews  in  the  Apostolic 
age. 

"  In  fact,  the  Second  (and  perhaps,  also  the  First) 
Epistle  of  St.  John,  who  is  said  to  have  preached  the 
Gospel  in  Parthia,  appears  to  have  been  written  to 
the  Elect  Church  of  the  Parthian  Assyrian,  of  which 
Babylon  Avas  the  head  ;  and  to  be  of  the  nature  of  a 
reply  to  St.  Peter's  First  Epistle  to  the  ^ Elect  oi  Asia^; 
written  from  the  same  Bab}  Ion,  and  bearing  the  saluta- 
tion of  the  co-elect  Church  of  that  city. 

"  But  what,  it  may  now  be  asked,  had  St.  Peter  to  do 
with  the  Assyrian  Babylon  ? 

"  In  reply  to  this  inquiry  let  me  remind  you  tJiat  it 
has  been  well  observed  that  there  is  something  very 
significant  in  the  arrangement  of  the  names  of  the 
countries  specified  by  the  inspired  writer  of  the  Acts  of 
the  Apostles,  in  his  enumeration  of  the  Jews  of  the  disper- 
sion who  had  flocked  to  Jerusalem  on  the  Da}'  of  Pente- 
cost, and  were  witnesses  of  the  effects  of  the  descent 
of  the  Holy  Ghost  on  the  Apostles,  and  listened  to  St. 


136  WAS  PETER  EVER  AT  ROMEf 

Peter''s  sermon  on  that  day,  by  wliicli  three  thousand 
souls  were  added  to  the  Church.  'How  hear  we  every 
man  in  our  tongue  wlierein  we  were  born  ? ' 

"Let  us  remark  the  sacred  liistorian's  order.     First 

*  Partliians,  Medes,  and  ELamites,  and  the  dwellers  in 
Mesopotamia  and  Judea.'  These  were  the  Jews  of  the 
dispersion  of  the  two  tribes  and  of  the  ten  tribes,  and 
these  Jews  of  the  dispersion  of  the  two  tribes  and  the 
ten  tribes  were  now  subject  to  the  Parthiajis,  whence  the 
Parthians  are  named^rs^y  and  of  these  the  metropolis 
was  Babylon. 

"Next  come  those  of  the  Asiatic  dispersion,  who 
were  devioed  from  Babylon,  and  are  called  in  the  Acts, 

*  the  dwellers  in  Cappadocia,  Pontus  and  Asia,  Phrj^gia 
and  Pamphylia.' 

"Hence  we  see  why  St.  Peter  the  Apostle  of  the 
circumcision  went  to  Baylon — the  Parthian  Babylon.  It 
was  the  headquarters  of  those  whom  he  himself  had 
addressed  with  such  wonderful  success  at  Jerusalem  on 
the  day  of  Pentecost,  and  who  are  named  first  by  the 
inspired  historian  of  the  Acts. 

"  Hence,  also,  we  see  why,  being  at  Babylon,  St. 
Peter  addressed  an  Epistle  to  the  *  strangers  scattered 
tliroughout  Pontus,  Galatia,  Cappadocia,  Asia,  and 
Bithynia  :  they  were  derived  from  Babylon  ;  they  were 
co-elect  with  the  church  there.  He  had  preached  to 
them  also  at  Jerusalem  ;  and  they  are  placed  seco?id  by 
the  inspired  writer  of  the  Acts. 

"  Hence,  also,  the  Apostle  St.  John,  who  Avas  stationed 
in  Asia,  among  these  strangers  of  the  dispersion  there, 
and  who  had  been  St.  Peter's  inseparable  companion  at 
Jerusalem,  and  is  particularly  noticed  as  such  in  the 
Acts  of  the  Apostles,  takes  up  St.  Peter's  language,  and 


THE  SECOND  EPISTLE  OF  JOHN.  13V 

responds  from  Asia  to  Parthia,  from  Epbesus  to  Babylon, 
from  the  Elect  Sister  of  the  one,  to  the  Elect  Lady  of 
the  other. 

"  Hence,  also,  we  shall  see  the  appropriateness  of  the 
mention  of  ^S"^.  JIark  in  St.  Peter's  salutation,  '  Thy  co- 
elect  sister  greeteth  thee,  and  so  doth  3Iarcus  my  Son^ 

"  For,  if  we  turn  back  to  the  enumeration  in  the  Acts, 
we  find  first,  as  I  have  said,  the  Parthian  or  Assyrian 
dispersion  ;  secondly,  the  Asiatic  derived  from  the 
Parthian  ;  thirdly  and  lastly,  the  Egyptian,  who  were 
carried  from  Judea  into  Egypt  by  Ptolemy  Lagus,  or, 
as  they  are  called  by  the  sacred  historian  of  the  Acts, 
'those  of  Egypt  and  In  the  parts  of  Libya  about  Cyrene, 
Jews  and  Proselytes,  Cretes  and  Arabians  ;  we  do  hear 
them  speak  in  our  own  tongues  the  wonderful  works  of 
God.' 

"These  three  dispersions  were,  if  we  may  so  speak, 
St.  Peter's  audience  at  Jerusalem  on  the  day  of  Pente- 
cost, and  they  were  the  spiritual  Province  of  that  Apostle 
— the  Apostle  of  the  Circumcision. 

"  Now  observe,  how  did  St.  Peter  provide  for  all  these 
three  dispersions  which  made  up  his  Province  ?  lie 
provided  for  the  first,  that  of  Babylon,  by  visiting  them 
in  person.  He  provided  for  the  second,  the  Asiatic,  by 
writing  to  it  from  Babylon. 

"  He  provided  for  the  third,  the  Egyptian,  by  sending 
to  them  Marcus  his  soji,  who  was  the  first  Bishop  of 
Alexandria. 

"  Thus  St.  Peter,  writing  from  Babylon  to  Asia  and 
sending  the  salutation  of  Mark,  connects  all  the  three 
dispersions  together.     Thus  he  took  care  of  them  all. 

*'  Time  and  the  occasion  do  not  allow  that  I  should 
say  anything   here   on    the    reply   derived   from    these 


138  WAS  PETER  EVER  AT  ROME f 

results,  to  the  Romisli  identification  of  the  Babylon  of 
St.  Peter's  Epistle  with  Home,  and  on  the  claim  to  uni- 
versal spiritual  supremacy  set  up  for  St.  Peter,  and 
through  him  for  the  Bishop  of  Home  :  neither  of  which 
allegations  is  comjjatible  with  what  has  now  been  sub- 
mitted for  3^our  consideration." 

In  a  note  Bishop  Wordsw^orth  adds  :  "  After  the 
above  had  been  written,  I  read  with  pleasure  the  fol- 
lowing words  of  Estius  (in  Epis.  1.  Joh.  Praef.  p.  1201, 
ed.  Rothermag  1109)  :  '  The  tradition  of  the  ancients  is 
that  John's  Epistle  was  written  to  the  Parthians : 
Hence  the  title  which  Pope  Ilyginus  gives  it,  Epist.  I, 
Possidius  in  Indie,  op.  Augustini,  and  Augustine  him- 
self, Quoest.  Evang.  ii.  c.  39;  moreover,  Pope  John 
the  Second  in  Epist.  ad  Valerium  Episcopum.  He  writes 
to  the  Parthians,  who  were  a  neighboring  nation  to  the 
Medes,  for  in  that  region  were  many  Jews  of  the  ancient 
dispersion  of  the  ten  tribes,  whence  in  Acts,  chapter 
second,  the  Parthians  are  first  named.  Wherefore, 
just  as  Peter  sent  his  Epistle  to  the  Jews  of  the  Dis- 
persion in  Pontus,  etc.,  whom  Luke  enumerated  later, 
so  also  John  Avrote  to  the  Jews  in  the  East,  that  is  in 
Parthia  and  the  neighboring  localities,  not  but  that 
each  Apostle  desired  that  his  Epistle  should  be  com- 
municated also  to  the  Gentiles  of  those  regions  who 
believed  in  Christ  and  w^ere  members  of  his  church.'  " 

Bishop  Wordsworth  also  remarks  :  "  If  an3'one  is 
disposed  to  doubt  whether  the  Babylon  of  St.  Peter  is 
the  Babylon  of  Assyria,  let  me  refer  him  to  Lightfoot's 
sermon  on  1  Peter  v.  13.  vol.  ii.  p.  1144."     See  p.  87. 

Prebendary  Townsend,  Notes  N.  Test.,  1  Epist.  St. 
John,  has  presented  valuable  and  suggestive  thoughts, 
which   serve   to   throw   light  on  a  subject   concerning 


THE  SECOND  EPISTLE  OE  JOHN.  139 

which  we  have  no  authenicatctl  facts,  but  simply  con- 
jectures, and  a  balance  of  probabilities,  by  which  to 
determine  our  judgment. 

He  saj'S  :  "  A  more  important  question  is,  whether 
St.  John  lived  exclusively  among  the  Greek  cities  of 
Asia,  in  the  interval  between  the  overthrow  of  Jeru- 
salem and  the  banishment  to  Patmos  in  the  last  year  of 
Domitian.  This  cannot  be  satisfactorily^  decided.  The 
learned  Mill  places  some  dependence  upon  the  tradition 
that  the  Apostle  traveled  into  Parthia  and  Asia. 

"  llis  first  Epistle  was  called,  by  Augustine,  the 
Epistle  to  the  Parthians  ;  and  the  Jesuits'  Letters  cited 
by  Baronius,  affirm  that  the  people  of  a  town  in  India 
believed  the  Gospel  to  have  been  preached  there  by  St. 
John  ;  and  the  same  is  asserted,  as  I  find  by  Lampe,  by 
the  people  of  a  town  in  Arabia. 

"  It  is  not  probable  that  he  would  immediately  estab- 
lish himself  in  Ephesus,  as  Timothy,  who  is  generally 
declared  by  the  ecclesiastical  historians  to  have  been 
bishop  of  that  place,  was  probably  still  alive. 

"  Others,  whose  opinion  is  strongly  condemned  by 
Lampe,  have  been  of  the  opinion  that  St.  John  did  not 
take  up  his  residence  in  Ephesus  till  near  the  end  of  the 
reign  of  Domitian.  This  opinion  seems  to  be  supported 
by  the  little  remaining  evidence  which  can  enable  us  to 
come  to  any  decision  on  a  point  so  obscure.  The 
Apostles  were  commanded  to  preach  throughout  the 
world,  and  they  would  probably  have  adopted  that  plan 
which  they  are  said  to  have  done,  that  each  should  take 
his  peculiar  district,  and  to  that  direct  his  attention. 

"As  part,  at  least,  of  Asia  Minor  had  been  placed 
under  the  care  of  Timothy,  it  is  not  unlikely  that  St. 
John  would  have  traveled  to  other  parts  of  the  East  be- 


140  WAS  PETER  EVER  AT  ROME? 

fore  he  came  to  Epliesus,  to  reside  there.  The  course  of 
his  travels  might  have  been  from  tlie  east  of  Judea  to 
Parthia  and  round  from  thence  to  India,  and  returning 
by  Arabia  to  Asia,  he  tliere  preached  and  founded  the 
churches  of  Smyrna,  Pergamus,  Tlij'atira,  Sard  is,  Pliila- 
delphia,  Laodicea,  and  othei-s.  These  he  might  have 
established  at  the  conclusion  of  his  route. 

"In  Parthia,  India,  and  Arabia,  he  would  not  have 
required  the  Greek  language,  and  during  the  short 
period  which  elapsed  between  his  arrival  in  Asia  and 
his  banishment  at  the  latter  end  of  the  reign  of  Domitian, 
he  would  have  been  more  likely  to  have  acquired  that 
kind  of  language  which  we  find  in  the  Apocalypse, 
than  the  more  polished  style  of  the  Epistles  and  the 
Gospel.  The  former  shows  less  acquaintance  with  the 
language  than  the  latter  ;  and  the  fact  is  fully  accounted 
for,  if  we  suppose  that  the  Apostle,  when  he  wrote  the 
Apocalypse,  had  not  so  frequent  intercourse  with  the 
people  as  at  a  subsequent  period  ;  and  the  course  of  his 
travels  explains  the  causes  of  this  fact. 

"  If  we  may  thus  decide  respecting  the  travels  of  St. 
John  after  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  w^e  reconcile 
many  of  the  various  traditions  of  antiquity,  and  account 
for  the  difference  between  the  language  of  the 
Apocalypse,  and  the  other  writings  of  the  Apostle." 

Note.— W.  M.  Thomson,  Land  and  Book,  -'31,  eays  that  John  was  in  Jeru- 
salem, A.  D.  50  or  53.  Acts  xv.  "  Mary  must  have  been  between  sixty-five 
and  seventy  years  of  age.  If  St.  John  subsequently  went  to  Babylon,  before 
removing  to  Ephesus,  as  many  suppose,  it  is  highly  probable  that  he  had 
fulfilled  the  honorable  mission  of  our  Lord,  in  respect  to  the  care  of  his 
mother,  and  that  shortly  after  her  decease  he  left  Jerusalem." 


CHAPTER  XVI. 
IResults  of  Ifuquirg  G:bus  3Far. 

In  our  examination  of  Scripture  and  ancient  authors 
for  a  century  after  the  death  of  Peter,  we  have  not  been 
able  to  find  a  trace  of  him  in  Rome,  or  west  of  Caesarea. 
The  historian  of  tlie  Apostles  gives  no  account  of  his 
later  labors,  nor  of  any  visit  to  the  West.  Clement,  his 
contemporary,  speaks  of  his  abundant  labors,  and  of 
Paul's,  and  his  language  fairly  intimates  that  he  did 
not,  like  Paul,  travel  to  the  West.  Ignatius  mentions 
Peter's  name,  but,  writing  to  Rome,  does  not  refer  to 
liim  as  present  there.  Justin,  Barnabas,  Polycarp,  and 
Hernias  of  the  second  century  do  not  notice  him,  an 
omission  which  cannot  be  reconciled  with  his  presence 
in  Rome,  The  Prince  of  the  Apostles  could  not  thus 
be  ignored. 

Dr.  Lakdner,  the  most  noted  advocate  of  the  Peter- 
Roman  legend,  was  found  to  have  presented  no  conclusive 
evidence  in  the  affirmative,  nor  to  have  advanced  any 
reason  why  Peter  should  not  have  labored  in  Babylon. 

Canon  FAERAR,who  adopts  the  stor^'  of  Peter's  Roman 
visit,  it  was  seen,  presents  no  sufficient  argument  for  its 
reception  :  enough  to  answer  its  exceeding  improba- 
bility. 

Dr.  Samsox,  who  strongly  asserts  the  Apostle's  early 
visit  and  death  at  Rome,  Avas  answered,  in  general,  by 
an  extended  Catena  of  the  views  of  English  and  Con- 

141 


142  WAS  PETER  EVER  AT  ROME? 

tinental  writers,  who  deny  his  position.  What  these 
three  critics  liave  not  presented  to  establish  the  resi- 
dence of  Peter  in  Rome,  it  is  not  necessary  to 
notice. 

It  has  been  stated,  that  the  great  volume  of  modern 
opinion  of  Protestant  scholars  is  against  Rome  as  the 
field  of  Peter's  labors.  Before  establishing  the  fact,  a 
more  specific  reply  will  be  made  to  tlie  points  of  evi- 
dence in  the  afiirmative,  as  enumerated  b}'^  Dr.  Samson. 

DR.  Samson's  argument  noted. 

Dr.  Samson  says,  "  universal  historical  testimony 
makes  Rome  the  city  referi-ed  to  "  (as  Babylon),  and 
that  "  the  earl^r  Christian  writers  all  agree,"  with  re- 
spect to  the  "  visit  to  Rome." 

The  reply  to  this  is,  that  it  has  been  shown  that  no 
writer  for  a  hundred  years  after  Peter's  death  speaks  of 
the  Roman  visit.  With  respect  to  the  later  writers  whom 
he  enumerates,  the  rest  of  the  Examination  in  this  vol- 
ume will  be  devoted  to  their  opinions. 

That  Paul  mentions  Peter  in  his  first  letter  to  Corinth 
is  regarded  as  an  evidence  of  Peter's  visit  there,  and 
subsequentl}^  to  Rome. 

To  this  it  may  be  said  that  because  it  is  stated  that 
there  was  a  Petrine  party  in  Corinth,  this  did  not  deraan<l 
a  visit  from  Peter,  for  the  Jews  who  held  to  the  law  of 
Moses,  everywhere  appealed  to  Peter  ;  and  moreover  it 
is  noticeable  that  while  Paul  asserts  that  he  "planted 
and  Apollos  watered,"  he  omits  to  state  that  Peter 
likewise  labored,  which  he  could  not  have  failed  to  do  if 
Peter  had  been  present  in  Corinth. 

As  to  "likenesses  between  the  two  Apostles'  epistles, 
indicating    personal     association     and    intercourse    in 


DR.   SAMSON'S  ARGUMENT  NOTED.  143 

Rome";  Peter  was  attended  by  Silvanus  and  Mark, two 
of  Paul's  intimates,  who  had  probably  carried  to 
Babylon  the  letters  of  Paul,  about  which  they  nat- 
urally frequently  conversed. 

In  our  examination  of  the  relation  of  Mark  to  Peter, 
it  has  been  seen  that  there  is  no  evidence  that  Mark 
wrote  his  Gospel  in  Rome  under  the  supervision  of 
Peter,  but  that  the  probabilities  are  far  stronger  that 
the  work  was  done  in  Babylon.  Eminent  Roman 
Catliolic  authorities  were  given,  who  confirm  this  view. 

Witli  respect  to  Dr.  Samson's  opinion  that  Peter  was 
in  Rome  in  the  time  of  Claudius  and  subsequently,  this 
is  ably  controverted  by  Ellendorf,  a  Roman  Catholic, 
pp.64, 65.  Farrar  quotes  several  Roman  Catholic  authors 
in  proof  that  Peter  could  not  have  been  in  Rome  till  the 
days  of  Nero,  p.  67.  See  also  p.  59,  for  the  further  dis- 
cussion of  this  point. 

The  argument  that  Peter  visited  Rome  because  of 
"  influence  among  Romans,"  in  consequence  of  the  con- 
version of  Cornelius,  does  not  hold  good,  inasmuch  as  the 
Apostle,  though  providentially  selected  as  the  first  to 
preach  the  Gospel  to  the  Gentiles,  was  not  fitted,  by  ed- 
ucation or  training,  to  evangelize  the  West.  This  was 
the  province  of  the  accomplished  and  eloquent  Paul, 
while  Peter  was  the  appointed  minister  to  the  Circum- 
cision, for  which  he  was  eminently  fitted  ;  which  oflSce 
he  successfully  filled  at  Babylon,  the  center  and  head- 
quarters of  the  Jewish  dispersions.  No  sufficient  or 
controlling  motive  has  ever  been  advanced  to  draw 
Peter  from  Babylon  to  Rome  ;  nor  would  the  state- 
ment ever  have  been  made,  but  for  a  desire  to  aggran- 
dize a  particular  Church.  This  aggrandizement, 
produced   by  a    perversion   of    history,    has    been   the 


144  WAS  PETER  EVER  AT  ROME? 

source  of  evil  to   the  Clmrcli,  and  to  the  world,  such 
as  cannot  be  described  nor  estimated. 

It  has  been  seen  that  the  most  probable  and  con- 
vincing supposition  is  that  Peter  and  Jolm  labored 
conjointly  among  the  Circumcision  in  Babylon,  and  the 
East.  There  was  a  natural  and  earnest  desire  on  the 
part  of  both,  and  of  the  other  Apostles,  to  see  those 
converted  and  baptized  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  who 
sojourned  in  Parthia,  and  the  neighboring  countries  ; 
and  also  the  multitudes  who  had  annually  come  up  in 
the  years  succeeding  Pentecost,  and  to  whom  the  Gos- 
pel by  them  had  been  preached.  These  converts  needed 
visitation,  instruction,  and  encouragement,  and  it  would 
have  been  almost  inconceivable  that  the  Apostles,  after 
leaving  Jerusalem,  could  have  neglected  such  an  obvious 
duty.  The  more  this  subject  is  contemplated,  the  more 
light  and  interest  it  throws  upon  the  work  of  the  Apos- 
tles, whose  death  and  burial  Providence  appears  to 
have  concealed  from  the  knowledge  of  men,  as  in  the  case 
of  Moses,  to  prevent  that  worship  which  superstition 
would  have  offered  to  their  remains,  if  found.  We  know 
the  result  with  regard  to  the  fictitious  bones  and  imag- 
inary^ grave  of  Peter,  and  it  was  a  kind  and  merciful 
arrangement  that  history  cannot  throw  a  ra^^  of  light 
with  respect  to  the  grave  of  one  of  the  Apostles.  "  No 
man  knoweth  of  their  sepulchers  unto  this  da3\"  We 
have  a  tradition  Avith  respect  to  Paul,  but  no  facts  on 
Avhich  to  base  a  correct  judgment  with  regard  to  his 
burial  place.  It  is  a  matter  of  no  importance — it  is 
a  sad  reflection  on  human  weakness  and  depravity 
that  there  are  those  who  appear  to  be  more  desirous 
to  pay  reverence  to  the  bones  of  a  departed  Apostle, 
than  to  obey  that  doctrine   which  was  given  to  them  by 


ENGLISH  WRITERS.  145 

inspiration,    and    through   which  they    have  inherited 
eternal  glory. 

CATENA   OF    AUTHORITIES. 

In  proof  of  our  position,  that  modern  scholarship  has 
rendered  a  verdict  in  favor  of  Parthian  Babylon  as  the 
residence  and  field  of  labor  of  Peter's  later  years,  we 
present  the  names  of  writers  who  maintain  this  view. 

CONTINENTAL   AUTHORS. 

Calvin,  Beza,  Bengel,  Beausobre,  Basnage,  Drusius, 
Gerliardus,  Gomarus,  Vorstius,  Scaliger,  Salmasius, 
Turretin,  Suicer,  Schleusner,  Michaelis,  Valesius,  Junius, 
Vedelius,  Parens,  Estius,  Lipsius,  Wiesler,  Wettstein, 
Pott,  Weiss,  L'Enfant,  Grimm,  Von  Aramon,  Niebuhr, 
Keil,  Bertliold,  Steiger,  Neander,  Rosenmuller,  Mayer- 
hoff,  Bleek,  Ruetschl,  Herzog,  DeWette,  Reiche,  Barth, 
Credner,  Neudecker,  Ilutlier,  Kuhl,  Bruckner,  Winer, 
Meyer,  Guerike,  Fronmuller,  Kurtz,  Reuss,  Presense, 
Bouzique,  Gavazzi. 

ENGLISH    WRITERS. 

Among  English  scholars  who  agree  with  the  above  in 
regarding  Peter  as  writing  from  Babylon  in  the  East, 
are  :  Whittaker,  Willet,  Rainolds,  Bishops  Bale  and 
Andrews,  Lightfoot,  Mede,  Echard,  Bowen,  Cradock, 
Bps.  Cumberland  and  Conybeare,  Prideaux,  Trapp,  M. 
Henry,  Doddridge,  Benson,  Campbell,  Adam  Clarke, 
Gill,  Scott,  Stillingfleet,  Stackhouse,  DodAvell,  Allix, 
Peile,  Hawker,  Mil  man,  Robins,  Dick,  Hill,  Edgar, 
Kitto,  Wm.  Smitli,  D.  Brown,  J.  H.  Brown,  McGavin, 
Bloomfield,  Simon,  Greenwood,  Angus,  Alford,  Little- 
dale,  Salmond,  Kennion,  Young,  J.  C.  Gra^^,  Johnstone, 
11 


146  WAS  PETER  EVER  AT  ROME? 

Blaikie,  Cobbin,  J.  Brown  of  Edinburgli,  J.  Brown  of 
Haddington,  Lillie,  Maclean,  McGuire,  John  Wesley, 
Bishops  Ellicott,  Cotterill,  Wordsworth,  Thorold,  and 
Jones  ;  Archbishop  Thomson,  Davidson,  Darb}^ 
Bentley,  Wright,  J.  Martin,  J,  Owen,  Kennard,  W. 
Palmer,  Howson,  Conybeare,  Ayton,  Stanley,  J.  H. 
Blunt,  Nichols,  Exell,  Houseman,  A.  Bishop,  Witherow, 
Adolphus,  Edersheim,  D.  Eraser,  Littlewood,  Dalton, 
Boutelle,  Robertson,  Plumptre,  Arrowsmith,  Shepherd, 
Geikie,  J.  Farrar,  McDuff,  Eadie,  Dodds,  Powell, 
Lewin,  S.  R.  Green,  J.  Spence,  B.  W.  Newton,  Fair- 
bairn,  Hatch  in  Encj'^c.  Brit.,  Young's  Concise  Diction- 
ary, Oxford  Teacher's  Bible,  Cambridge  Bib.  Com., 
Pulpit  Com.,  Christian  Kn.  Soc.  Com.,  Annot  Par.  Bib., 
Faussett's  Bib.  Cyc,  Relig.  Tract  Soc,  London,  N.  Brit. 
Rev.,  November,  1848,  Edinburgh  Rev.,  July,  1893. 

AMERICAN  SCHOLARS. 

Of  American  writers  who  hold  to  Peter's  Babylonian 
residence  we  have  :  M.  Stuart,  Barnes,  Barrows, 
Mui'dock,  Bacon,  Elliott,  Crosby,  Shimeall,  Blackwood, 
Demarest,  Fisher,  Chambers,  Nourse,  Harwood, 
Richardson,  E.  J.  Smith,  S.  M.  Jackson,  T.  V.  Moore, 
C.  P.  Jones,  C.  M.  Butler,  Pond,  J.  G.  Butler,  Abbot 
and  Conant,  McClintock  and  Strong,  C.  Hodge,  Justin 
Edwards,  M.  R.  Vincent,  Bomberger,  Harman,  B.  B. 
Edwards,  Covel,  Blackman,  Ta3dor,  Binney  and  Steele, 
Hague,  Whedon,  Nast,  Jacobus,  McDonald,  E.  M. 
Hunt,  Mombert,  Coleman,  Dowling,  L.  A.  Sawyer,  J. 
H.  Thayer,  Broadus,  E.  C.  Mitchell,  J.  T.  Wlieeler, 
Goodrich,  Magoun,  Shedd,  Stowe,  A.  Bond,  J.  M. 
Pendleton,  J.  H.  Hopkins,  Kittredge,  J.  N.  Halloek,  N. 
Lawrance,  A.  E.  Dunning,  A.  R.  Wells,  M.  B.  Grier, 


THE  RESULT  REACHED.  147 

E.  T.  Tomlinson,  J.  R.  Miller,  Etter,  J.  M.  Frost,  J.  M. 
McDonald,  Kepliart,  J.  H,  Potts,  J.  F,  Berry,  E.  H. 
Dewart,  A.  H.  Vail,  J.  R.  Young,  Un.  Bib.  Diet., 
M.  B.  Riddle,  Am.  Sup.  to  Encyc.  Brit.,  Benton's  Ch. 
Elncyc.,  Clarke  and  Williams  Am.  Com.,  Inglis  Bible 
Text  Encyc,  Bible  Diet.  Am.  Tr.  Soc.,  Union  Bib. 
Diet.,  Princeton  Review. 

We  have  seen  that  Calmet,  De  Marca,  Marsillius, 
John  Baptist  Mantuan,  Michael  de  Ceza,  John  Aventin, 
Leland,  Caron,  Hardonin,  Dumoulin,  Dupin,  Erasmus, 
Hug,  De  Cormenin,  and  Ellendorf — distinguished 
Roman  scholars — adopt  the  generally  received  view  of 
learned  Protestants. 

On  pages  7-17  we  have  likewise  presented  the  names 
of  thirty  additional  eminent  writers  who  have  expressed 
their  belief  that  Peter  never  visited  Rome.  These 
necessarily  regarded  the  East  as  the  scene  of  his  labors. 

In  addition  to  these  names  Dr.  Kitto  adds  those  of 
Baur  and  Eichorn.  Professor  Hatch,  in  Encyc.  Britan., 
gives  those  of  Gundert,  Holzman,  Hausrath,  and  Zeller. 
With  these  also  agree  Zanchius,  Funccius,  Spanheim, 
Sutcliffe,  Hospinian,  Sibrandus,  Flaccius  Illyricus, 
Sclileiermacher,  Schwegler,  Hase,  and  Froschammer. 

Opposed  to  the  mystical  interpretation  of  Bellarmine 
and  other  Papal  authors,  are  likewise  the  fourteen 
scholars  ennumerated  on  p.  71,  who  hold  that  the 
Babylon  of  Peter  was  in  Egypt  ;  moreover,  the  four 
who  regard  Jerusalem  as  referred  to. 

THE    RESULT    REACHED. 

We  have  thus  enumerated  the  names  of  over  330 
prominent  theological  writers,  and  among  them  the 
most  noted  authors  known  ;  fifteen  of  whom  are  emi- 


148  WAS  PETER  EVER  AT  ROME? 

neiit  Roman  authors,  who  have  publicly  declared  their 
belief  that  the  Apostle  Peter  never  labored  or  ruled 
in  Rome  ;  and  with  few  exceptions  teach  that  he  never 
set  foot  in  Rome,  or  traveled  west  of  Palestine. 

A  few,  relying  on  the  uncertain  traditions  of  ancient 
authors,  regard  it  as  possible  that  he  was  brought  to 
Rome  to  die. 

When  we  reflect  that  the  Roman  Fabric  has  been 
constructed  on  Peter  as  a  foundation  ;  that  Popes  and 
Councils,  and  Bulls  and  Standards,  and  Roman  scholars 
pronounce  that  Peter  was  Prince  of  the  Apostles,  Head 
of  the  Church,  and  that  Rome  was  the  Center  and  Seat 
of  his  supreme  authority  ;  tliat  from  him  as  Bishop  of 
Rome,  comes  down  to  his  successors  in  that  See  univer- 
sal dominion  over  all  mankind,  supreme  power  over  all 
princes  and  governments  ;  that  they  possess  the  attribute 
of  Infallibilit}^,  with  respect  to  the  expounding  of  the 
truth,  and  that  from  them  there  is  no  appeal  ;  and  then, 
when,  per  contra,  Ave  consider  that  the  enlightened,  un- 
prejudiced, learning  and  scholarship  of  the  Avorld,  (for 
Roman  Catholics  are  not  permitted  to  question  or  oppose 
the  determinations  of  their  Church,  and  are  bound  to 
sustain  the  position  of  the  Pope,)  has  shown  that  there  is 
no  proof  extant  in  God's  Word,  or  in  any  historic  docu- 
ment within  a  centurj^  of  Peter,  that  he  ever  saw  Rome, 
or  ever  left  the  East  ;  that  there  is  no  foundation  in 
truth  for  the  claims  of  Rome  ;  that  the  Roman  bishop 
had  no  righteous  jurisdiction  outside  of  Italy  ;  can  we 
fail  to  perceive  that,  erelong,  this  baseless  superstructure 
must  crumble,  and  that  the  Truth  which  is  mighty  must 
prevail,  and  men  be  delivered  from  this  bondage  to 
superstition,  and  to  a  hoary,  world-wide,  and  stupendous 
delusion. 


THE  RESULT  REACHED.  149 

In  lands  where  liberty  prevails,  where  education  is 
universal,  light  will  spread,  the  truth  will  become  known, 
and  the  claims  of  Rome  will  be  rejected,  necessarily. 
And  we  would  be  glad  to  see  that  Church,  repudiating 
all  that  is  false  in  tlio  past,  and  conforming  herself  to 
the  inspired,  infallible  Word  of  God,  and  to  the  Light  of 
the  present  age,  become  the  teacher  of  the  truth,  and 
return  to  the  simplicity  and  purity  which  characterized 
her  in  her  primitive  history,  before  she  was  corrupted 
and  contaminated  by  worldly  prosperit}^,  and  the  seduc- 
tions of  temporal  power. 

Set  free  from  her  alliance  with  the  world,  casting 
aside  mere  human  traditions  ;  adhering  to  the  truths 
taught  by  Peter,  her  assumed  Founder,  and  by  Paul,  her 
divinely  appointed  Evangelist  ;  directing  her  followers 
to  Christ  the  only  Mediator  and  Priest ;  adopting  a 
Spiritual  and  Intelligent  worship  ;  she  may -look  for  the 
presence  and  gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit ;  she  may  become 
a  blessing  to  mankind,  and  augment  the  glory  of  God  in 
the  conversion,  enlightenment,  and  salvation  of  souls. 

This  whole  question  might  be  regarded  as  settled  by 
the  general  consent  of  the  most  enlightened  scholarship 
as  here  shown  ;  but  as  other  writers  of  Antiquity  of 
great  authority  have  been  appealed  to,  who  would  seat 
Peter  in  Rome,  these  will  be  examined  in  detail,  in 
order  to  learn  if  their  testimony  is  of  value,  and  can 
reverse  the  verdict  which  has  been  here  rendered. 


CHAPTER  XVII. 
1Rome'0  Bppeal  to  2lnt(qutt». 

In  oar  investigation  of  this  question  we  liave  presented 
all  authentic  documents,  Inspired  and  human,  which  have 
come  down  to  us  from  Antiquity  to  the  year  170,  which 
could  throw  light  upon  Peter's  relation  to  the  city  of 
Rome. 

Not  one  word  has  been  discovered  which  asserts  that 
this  Apostle  was  ever  in  Rome,  or  in  the  West, 

This  ought  to  be  sufficient  to  settle  the  matter  his- 
torically ;  but  inasmuch  as  the  Church  of  Rome  has 
presented  other  documents  to  prove  her  position,  we 
will  briefly  examine  them. 

THE     CLEMENTINA. 

All  these  documents  can  be  readily  shown  to  be 
Romances,  upon  which  all  later  traditions  are  based. 
Tliose  styled  the  Predicatio  Petri  and  the  Clementines 
are  the  imaginative  literature  of  the  Christians  of  that 
age,  who  were  able  to  read  the  manuscripts  of  that  time. 
These  works  are  similar  to  the  Chronicles  of  the  Cid  ; 
the  tales  of  Roland  ;  the  stories  of  Arthur  ;  and  more 
recently  the  Scottish  Chiefs  ;  all  fictitious  narratives  of 
the  exploits  of  veritable  heroes. 

CoTELERius,  an  eminent  Roman  Catholic  critic, 
classes  the  Predicatio  Petri  among  "libri  Pseudo- 
pigraphi  Apocryphi  ; "   and   says   that  it   was   written 

150 


I'HE  CLEMENTINA.  151 

by  a  person   "  painfully  unskilled  in  writing,  and  pvit- 
ting  together  fictitious   narratives."      (Pat.  Ap.  i.  490.) 

Simon,  who  has  written  the  most  exhaustive  treatise 
in  English  on  the  Petrine  claims,  states  (p.  30)  :  "Its 
name  seems  to  have  been  one  of  the  main  sources  of  the 
modern  error  about  Peter's  having  left  the  East.  As 
to  its  supposed  testimony,  however,  upon  this  subject, 
the  book  in  question  is  not  now  extant,  nor  is  there  any 
extract  from  it,  in  which  it  is  pretended  that  there  is 
the  slightest  allusion  to  anything  of  the  kind." 

Ellendorf,  a  Roman  Catholic,  writes  :  "  The  Church 
has  had  her  time  of  fables.  .  .  The  Recognitions, 
etc,  were  invented.  The  period  of  these  fictions  belongs 
to  the  second  and  third  centuries,  and  it  coincides  with 
that  in  which  the  authorities  above  quoted  lived."  (Bib. 
Sac,  Jan.,  1859,  p.  99.) 

MosHEiM,  writes  (vol.  i.  p.  75)  :  "  The  Apostolic 
Canons,  Constitutions,  the  Recognitions  of  Clement, 
and  the  Clementina  were  fraudulently  ascribed  to  this 
eiriinent  father  by  some  deceiver,  for  the  purpose  of 
giving  them  greater  authority.     This  all  now  concede." 

Professor  Addison  Alexander,  on  the  Apostolical 
Constitutions,  says  :  "  They  were  rejected  by  the  Con- 
cilium Quinsextum  (692),  and  also  by  Baronius  and 
Daille,  and  are  now  generally  given  up." 

Of  these  same  writings.  Riddle,  in  his  Christian 
Antiquities,  quotes  Professor  Burton  of  Oxford  (p.  60) . 
"  They  are  such  palpable  forgeries,  if  they  were  really 
meant  to  deceive,  that  it  would  be  a  waste  of  critical 
labor  to  prove  that  they  were  not  written  by  Clement." 

Harnack,  a  recent  critic,  terras  them,  "a  Jewish- 
Christian  partisan  romance." 

"  It  is  the  work  of  a  Judaizing  Christian  according  to  a 


152  WAS  PETER   EVER  AT  HOME? 

very  peculiar  form  of  Ebionitisni,  Abundantly  proved 
by  Schlienian  and  Neander." — Milman's  Lat.  Chr. 

"  Tlie  legend  about  Peter's  bishopric  at  Rome  (ac- 
cording to  Eusebius,  from  tlie  years  42-67)  is  derived 
from  the  heretical  pseudo-Clementines  and  Recogni- 
tions, an  authority  entirely  untrustworthy." — Kurtz, 
Church  History,  i.  65. 

"  So  many  Apocryphal  Gospels,  Epistles,  Itineraries, 
Passions,  as  are  counterfeited  under  the  name  of  Apostles 
and  ancient  Fathers  ;  who  knoweth  not  to  be  fables  and 
false  inventions,  among  which  this  fable  of  Simon  Magus 
and  Peter  is  one." — Dr.  Fulke,  Wks.,  ii.  339. 

Father  Tillemont  speaks  of  the  Clementina  as  "  full 
of  fallacies  and  fables." 

Father  Dupin  says  :  "  All  these  writings  are  only  a 
series  of  fictions  and  idle  stories."  The  Dominican 
Father  Cellier  characterizes  it  in  the  same  wa}'. 

"  Baronius,  another  Romanist,  calls  the  Recognitions 
attributed  to  Clement  '  a  gulf  of  uncleanness  and  filth, 
full  of  prodigious  lies  and  forgeries.' "  Nourse  on 
Fathers.  Prot.  Rev.,  Oct.,  1847,  310. 

These  fictions  represent  Clemens  Romanus  a  noble 
writer  (Simon's  Miss,  and  Martj-rdom  of  Peter,  p.  54), 
meeting  with  Peter  in  the  East,  who  becomes  his  com- 
panion in  his  journey. 

What  Peter  taught,  and  how  the  father,  mother,  and 
brother  of  Clement  are  recognized  and  converted,  are 
interwoven  into  the  romance. 

Peter's  contests  with  Simon  Magus  are  narrated,  and 
his  sending  of  twelve  missionaries  to  follow  Simon  to 
Rome  ;  but  no  mention  is  made  of  Peter's  journey 
thither  in  the  "  Recognitions,"  though  in  the  "  Epitome  " 
of  the  Recognitions  there  is  an  allusion  to  it.     In  the 


THE  CLEMENTINA.  153 

Clementines,  for  tiie  first  time,  Peter  is  called  Bishop  of 
Koine. 

"All  the  Roman  Catholic  writers,"  Simon  writes, 
p.  54,  "  are  unanimous  in  declaring  the  'Clementina'  in 
unmeasured  terms  a  mere  tissue  of  lies  and  nonsense." 

Saavyer,  in  Organic  Christ.,  p.  49,  remarks  :  "A 
Christian  in  the  latter  part  of  the  second  century  under- 
took to  resolve  the  principal  exciting  questions  of  his 
time,  by  a  work  of  fiction  under  tlie  title  of  Ta  Klemen- 
tia.  Memories  of  Clement  ;  consisting  of  three  Pro- 
logues and  twenty  Homilies,  pretending  to  reveal  the 
Apostolic  traditions. 

"To  obviate  any  objections  which  it  might  encounter 
from  its  late  appearance,  it  was  prefaced  by  a  letter 
from  the  Apostle  Peter  to  James,  in  which  the  latter  is 
requested  to  communicate  the  Homilies  only  to  trust- 
worthy brethren,  under  the  seal  of  secrecy  uj^on  oath. 
Hom.  ii.  17. 

"  This  book  makes  Clement  in  his  travels  in  pursuit  of 
knowledge  meet  Peter  in  the  East,  from  whom  he  re- 
ceives the  Gospel.  In  a  letter  of  Peter  to  James,  he 
gives  the  latter  the  title  of  Lord  and  Bishop  of  bishops, 
and  makes  him  the  superior  of  the  two.  It  also  repre- 
sents, contrary  to  fact,  Peter  the  true  Apostle  to  the 
Gentiles,  and  the  founder  and  first  bishop  of  the  Church 
of  Rome.  The  work  immediately  gained  credit  at 
Rome,  and  was  modified  and  circulated  under  the  title 
of  the  Recognition  of  Clement  about  a.  d.  230. 

"  These  were  followed  by  another  pious  forgery  of  the 
Constitution  of  the  Apostles,  written  near  the  close  of 
the  third  century.  Till  the  latter  part  of  the  third 
century,  the  Roman  Episcopacy  of  Peter  is  asserted  by 
the  Recognitions  of  Clement  alone  :    a  work  of  about 


154  WAS  PETER  EVER  AT  ROME? 

equal  authority  and  lioiiesty  with  the  Book  of  Mormon." 
— Murdock's  Mosheim,  i.  p.  184. 

Astliis  work  makes  Peter  Bishop  of  Rome,  and  subor- 
dinate to  James,  Bishop  of  Jerusalem,  if  it  was  of  any 
worth  as  testimony,  it  overthrows  the  claim  of  the  Pope 
as  supreme  Bishop,  and  that  Church  is  welcome  to  it. 

Dr.  Salmon,  in  Christ.  Biog.,  Art.  Clem.  Lit.,  an  ex- 
haustive treatise,  sa^^s  :  "The  scene  of  the  story  is  all 
laid  in  the  East,  and  the  writings  show  no  familiarity 
with  the  Roman  Church.  ,  .  All  through,  it  is  James  of 
Jerusalem,  not  Peter,  who  is  rej^resented  as  the  supreme 
ruler  of  the  Churches." 

The  Clementines  have  been  here  thoroughly  ventilated, 
to  show  how  the  story  of  Peter's  Western  visit  was 
enabled  to  obtain  so  wide  a  circulation,  and  to  be  so 
largely  credited  in  the  third  century  and  later.  It  is 
THE  Fountain  Head  of  the  Roman  Petrine  Claims. 

DR.  GEORGE    P.  FISHER. 

Among  the  valuable,  interesting  contributions  to 
Church  history  b}^  Professor  Geo.  P.  Fisher,  is  that  on 
"  Ebionitism "  in  the  American  Presbyterian  Review, 
1864,  p.  540,  He  speaks  of  the  Clementine  Homilies 
as  "a  sj^urious  production,  the  work  of  an  unknown 
writer,  and  abounding  in  fantastic,  anti-Christian  ideas 
which  could  never  have  gained  the  assent  of  a  sober- 
minded  Christian  ;  it  represents  the  opinions  of  an  indi- 
vidual, and  not  the  sentiments  of  anj^  important  body  of 
Christians." 

How  these  fictions  were  employed  in  later  writers  to 
disseminate  untruths,  he  illustrates  by  presenting  a 
recent  similar  translation, 

"Toward  the  close  of  the  American  Revolution  there 


DR.    GEORGE  P.    FISHER.  155 

appeared  in  London  a  liistory  of  Connecticut  from  the 
pen  of  Rev.  Samuel  Peters,  who  had  been  a  missionary 
in  Hebron  in  that  State,  but  he  had  left  in  consequence 
of  the  unpopularity  he  had  incurred  by  taking  the  side 
of  the  English  Government.  The  work,  though  pref- 
aced by  protestations  of  fidelity  and  painstaking,  is  an 
odd  mixture  of  fact  and  fiction.  Among  other  fabulous 
stories,  Peters  promulgated  the  notion  that  unrecorded 
laws,  wliich  are  styled  "blue  laws,"  of  an  ascetic  and 
whimsical  severity,  were  in  force  among  the  early  Puri- 
tans of  the  colony.  This  singular,  mendacious  chronicle 
is  thought  worthy  to  be  cited,  thougli  not  without  some 
expressions  of  distrust,  by  so  recent  an  author  as  the 
worthy  Dr.  Hussey,  in  the  Bampton  lectures  upon  the 
history  of  the  observance  of  Sunday. 

"  Now  what  would  be  thought  of  an  historical  critic 
Avlio,  at  some  time  in  the  remote  future,  should  take 
Peters  for  the  governing  authority  in  his  investigation 
of  the  ancient  history  of  Connecticut?  Other  docu- 
ments, let  it  be  supposed,  are  extant  which  have  been 
universally  regarded  as  authentic.  But  these,  together 
with  historians  like  Bancroft  and  Palfrey,  who  lived 
much  nearer  tlie  events,  and  were  in  possession  of  a 
great  amount  of  traditionary  and  documentary  evidence 
which  has  since  perislied,  he  chooses  to  set  aside. 
Such  a  course  would  match  that  taken  by  the  critics 
who  would  convert  the  Clementine  fiction  into  an 
authority  sufticient  to  override  the  foremost  historical 
testimonies." 

And  yet  these  fictions  are  the  basis  of  the  later  tra- 
ditions that  Peter  traveled  to  Rome,  and  founded  there 
the  Church  of  Christ. 

We  are  justified  in  saying  in  the  words  of  the  learned 


156  WAS  PETER  EVER  AT  ROMEf 

Lipsius — "At  tlie  close  of  the.  first,  and  up  to  the  begin- 
ning of  the  second  century,  tliere  was  in  Pauline  circles, 
inside  and  outside  of  Rome,  no  knowledge  of  Peter's 
labors  in  that  city  ;  no  knowledge  of  his  martyrdom 
there  under  Nero."     (Pres,  Quar.,  April,  1876,  p.  272.) 

DIONYSIUS    OF    CORINTH. 

The  works  of  tliis  bishop,  a.  d.  170,  are  lost.  We 
have  an  extract  in  Eusebius  (ii.  25),  a.  d.  340,  which 
reads  thus  :  "  So  also  now,  you  by  this  your  admoni- 
tion, have  again  blended  into  one,  that  plantation  of  the 
Romans  and  Corinthians,  which  was  first  sown  by  Peter 
and  Paul  ;  for  both  liaving  planted  us  here  in  Corinth, 
taught  us  in  like  manner,  and  then  in  like  manner  and 
place,  having  taught  in  Italy,  tliey  bore  their  testimony 
about  the  same  time."  This  was  addressed  to  Soter, 
Bishop  of  Rome. 

On  this  passage  Sawyer  remarks:  "  The  genuineness 
of  tliis  is  much  doubted.     It  certainly  is  false." 

Gloag,  Intro.  Cath.  Epistles,  p.  150,  writes:  "The 
earliest  of  the  Fathers,  Dionysius  of  Corinth,  lived  a 
hundred  years  after  the  death  of  Peter,  and  during  that 
period  there  was  ample  time  for  the  rise  and  growth  of 
the  legend  concerning  the  death  of  Peter." 

In  a  review  of  Dr.  Scheler  on  St.  Peter,  in  N.  Brit. 
Rev.,  Nov.,  1848,  p.  31,  of  Dionysius  it  is  said  :  This 
fatlier  bears  the  earliest  witness  to  the  martyrdom  of 
St.  Peter  at  Rome,  provided  the  epistle  attributed  to 
him  b}^  Eusebius  was  a  genuine  document.  Its  authen- 
ticity is,  however,  mucli  doubted.  At  all  events,  the 
last  part  of  the  sentence  of  Dionj'sius  is  in  direct 
contradiction  to  Eusebius  (Hist.  Eccl.,  ii.  25,  iii.  i.; 
Tertulliau  Contra  Marc,  iv.  25,  and  Lactantius  de  Mort. 


DI0NTSIU8  OF  CORINTH.  157 

Persecut.,  ch.  ii,):  the  former  with  St.  Paul's  First  Epistle 
to  the  Corinthians,  iv.  15;  compare  iii.  6,  10;  ix.  1,  2  ; 
and  lastly,  the  remaining  assertion  of  St.  Peter  having 
accompanied  St.  Paul  on  his  journey  to  Rome,  with  the 
account  of  St.  Luke,  Acts  xxviii." 

Shepherd  in  his  "History  of  the  Church  of  Rome," 
p.  532,  regards  the  extract  from  Dionysius  a  forgery. 

"  Paul  is  expressly  contradicted.  He  declares,  '  I  have 
planted.  Apollos  watered.'  Strange  treatment  of 
Peter,  if  he  too  had  taught  at  Corinth  !  Marvelous  that 
Clement,  a  centur^^  previous  in  Iiis  Epistle  to  the  Cor- 
inthir.ns,  when  he  appeals  to  all  the  holy  authorities,  to 
the  Scriptures,  the  saints,  and  to  Paul's  Epistles,  should 
have  omitted  the  Apostle  who  ordained  him  at  Rome, 
who  had  preached  in  Corinth,  provided  the  statement 
of  Dion3'8ius  is  true." 

On  this  statement,  made  a  ceutur}'  after  Peter's  death, 
supported  by  no  previous  contemporary  writer,  contra- 
dicted by  the  words  of  Scripture,  we  can  place  no  reli- 
ance. 

Ellendorf  accounts  for  the  language  of  Dionysius 
whom  he  regards  as  "a  well-informed  and  sensible 
man,"  thus  :  "  In  his  time  the  oldest  churches  every- 
where were  striving  to  deduce  their  origin  from  the 
most  famous  of  the  Apostles.  Had  the  Romans  drawn 
Peter  to  Rome  and  associated  him  with  Paul,  Corinth 
did  not  wish  to  be  left  behind  ;  it  does  the  same  thing. 
But  the  story  found  the  easier  reception,  as  we  see, 
from  First  Corinthians  ;  there  really  had  heew  folloicers 
of  Peter  at  Corinth,  who  had  likewise  formed  a  party 
there.  Hence  it  was  easily  concluded  that  Peter  him- 
self had  preached  tlie  Gospel  at  Corinth.  The  journey 
with  Paul  was  thus  readily  added  to  it  of  itself  "  (p.  53). 


158  WAS  PETER  EVER  AT  ROME? 

In  trntli,  Corintli  had  a  stronger  argument  in  Scripture 
for  Peter's  presence  there,  than  Rome  itself. 

Dr.  Chas.  Hodge,  Intro.  Com.  Epist.  Romans,  writes  : 
"  The  tradition  that  Peter  ever  was  in  Rome  rests  on 
very  uncertain  authority.  It  is  first  mentioned  by 
Dionysius  of  Corinth  in  the  latter  half  of  the  second 
century,  and  from  that  time  seems  to  have  been  gener- 
ally received. 

"  The  account  is  in  itself  improbable,  as  Peter's  field 
of  labor  Avas  in  the  East,  about  Babylon  :  and  as  the 
statement  of  Dionysius  is  full  of  inaccuracies.  He 
makes  Peter  and  Paul  the  founders  of  the  Church  of 
Corinth,  and  makes  the  same  assertion  regarding  the 
Church  at  Rome,  neither  of  which  is  true. 

"  He  also  says  that  Paul  and  Peter  suffered  mar- 
t3a-dom  at  the  same  time  at  Rome,  which,  from  the 
silence  of  Paul  respecting  Peter,  during  his  last  impris- 
onment, is  in  the  highest  degree  improbable." 

Dr.  John"  Owen,  describing  the  untrustworthiness  of 
the  Patristic  writings, says  :  "The  truth  is,  the  corrup- 
tion and  fiction  of  the  epistolical  writings  in  the  first 
ages  was  so  intolerable  as  that  very  little  in  that  kind 
is  preserved  sincere  and  unquestionable. 

"  Hence  Dionysius,  the  Bishop  of  Corinth,  complained 
that  in  his  own  time,  his  own  epistles  were  so  corrupted 
by  additions  and  subtractions,  as  that  it  seems  he  would 
have  them  no  more  esteemed  as  his."  Euseb.  Eccles. 
Hist.,  1.  iv.  c.  23. 

What  evidence  does  Eusebius  present  that  this  letter 
to  Soter  was  not  among  the  garbled  correspondence 
which  Dionysius  rejected  as  his  own  ?  Before  receiving 
it  as  worthy  of  any  credit,  proof  must  be  given  of  its 
authenticity ;  and  having  none,  we  are  plainly  justified 


DIONYSIUS  OF  CORINTH.  159 

in  excluding  it  from  consideration  in  this  pre-eminently 
important  inquiry. 

That  it  would  not  be  received  in  any  Court  of  justice, 
where  even  a  small  amount  of  property  was  concerned, 
requires  no  argument. 

As  this  statement  of  Dionysius  is  so  important  in  its 
bearing  on  our  investigation,  we  give  the  language  of 
Eusebius  in  full.  He  writes,  book  iv.  c.  23  :  "The  same 
author  [Dionysius]  writes,  I'especting  his  own  epistles, 
as  having  been  corrupted.  '  As  the  brethren  desired 
me  to  write  epistles,  I  wrote  them,  and  these  the  Apos- 
tles of  the  Devil  have  filled  with  tares,  exchanging 
some  things  and  adding  others,  for  wliom  there  is  a  woe 
reserved.  It  is  not,  tlierefore,  matter  of  Avonder,  if 
some  have  also  attempted  to  adulterate  the  Sacred  Writ- 
ings of  the  Lord,  since  they  liave  attempted  the  same 
in  other  works  that  are  not  to  be  compared  with  these.'  " 

We  are  compelled  to  rule  Dionysius  out  of  the  witness 
box,  out  of  respect  to  his  protestations.  It  is  neither 
just  nor  fair,  as  we  have  not  his  writings,  to  charge 
him  with  the  invention  of  Peter's  Western  journey. 

It  is  not  remarkable,  that,  it  having  been  determined 
to  aggrandize  the  Church  of  Rome  at  the  expense  of 
other  Christian  Churches,  the  manuscripts  of  the  few 
authors  which  have  reached  us  were  deliberately  and 
systematically  garbled  by  interested  writers.  We  have 
seen  liow  the  Epistle  of  Clement  was  suppressed,  because 
so  damaofinir  to  the  claims  of  the  Roman  See. 


CHAPTER  XVIII. 
IFieiuxus. 

This  author,  who  lived  at  the  close  of  the  second 
century,  is  regarded  by  Roman  Catliolic  writers  as  giv- 
ing the  most  decisive  testimony  to  the  fact  that  Peter 
visited  Rome,  and  founded  there  the  Christian  Church 
of  that  city. 

His  language  appears  so  direct  and  positive  that  it 
has  misled  many  Protestants.  He  refers  to  "  the  tradi- 
tions whicli  that  greatest,  most  ancient,  and  best  known 
of  all  the  churches,  the  church  founded  by  the  glorious 
Apostles  Peter  and  Paul  at  Rome,  had  received  from 
those  Apostles  themselves,  and  has  handed  down  through 
a  regular  succession  of  bishops  to  our  day." 

On  these  words,  attributed  to  Irenseus,  has  been  largely 
built  the  belief  that  Peter  labored  in  Rome.  An  exami- 
nation of  them  proves  that,  if  Irenreus  was  an  intelligent 
or  well  informed  writer,  he  could  not  have  penned 
them. 

Rome  was  not  at  that  time  "  the  greatest,  most  ancient, 
and  best  known  of  all  the  churches."  The  Church  of 
Alexandria  then,  and  for  a  century  afterward,  largely 
excelled  that  of  Rome  in  learning,  power,  and  influence. 

Dean  Stanley  writes  in  his  "History  of  the  Eastern 
Church":  "The  most  learned  body  of  men  assembled 
at  Nicfea  was  the  Church  of  Alexandria.  The  see  of 
Alexandria  was  then   the  most  important   in  the  Old 

>  160 


IBENyEUS.  161 

World.  .  .  Its  episcopate  was  the  '  Evangelical  See  '  as 
founded  by  the  Evangelist  Mark.  .  .  Its  occupant,  as  we 
have  seen,  was  the  only  potentate  of  the  time  who  bore 
the  name  of  '  Pope.'  .  .  '  The  Head  of  the  Alexandrian 
Church,'  says  Gregory  Nazianzen,  '  is  the  head  of  the 
world.'  In  his  own  province  his  jurisdiction  was  even 
more  extensive  than  that  of  the  Roman  Pontiff."  Such 
a  false  statement  as  this  discredits  the  remainder  of  the 
story,  and  seems  to  indicate  the  purpose  of  the  writer  to 
glorify  that  See  at  the  expense  of  the  truth,  and  to  give 
it  more  credit  by  attaching  the  name  Irenteus  to  it. 

On  the  erroneous  principle,  so  common  among  the 
Fathers,  that  it  was  right  to  deceive,  to  advance  the 
interest  of  religion  ;  this  Latin  scribe  would  be  strongly 
tempted  to  augment  the  grandeur  of  the  Roman  See,  by 
inventing  the  bombastic  statement  that  it  was  "  founded 
by  the  glorious  Apostles  Peter  and  Paul,"  with  "  tradi- 
tions," received  from  the  Apostles  themselves,  handed 
down  "  through  a  regular  succession  of  bishops  to  our 
day." 

On  these  words,  for  which  Ave  have  no  evidence  that 
Irenfeus  wrote  in  Greek  the  statement  they  affirm,  has 
been  built  up  mainly  the  Petrine  visit  to  Rome,  and  also 
tbe.so-called  doctrine  of  Apostolic  Succession,  Avhich  as 
of  a  personal,  tactual,  uninterrupted  character,  connected 
with  an  assumed  third  Divine  order  of  Ministers,  was 
entirely  unknown  to  the  Primitive  Church  previous  to 
Cyprian,  a.  d.  250  ;  there  being  no  Christian  writing  ex- 
tant in  that  period  which  mentions  it.  Succession  of 
Apostolic  Doctrine  the  Church  possesses,  and  a  ministry 
from  the  Apostles  ;  but  not  a  third  Divine,  ecclesiastical 
order.  This  Jerome  and  otlier  Fathers  assert  in  lan- 
guage as  clear  as  possible.  Tliere  is  no  credible  testi- 
13 


162  WAS  rSTEB  EVER  AT  ROME? 

mony  to  a  second  ordination  to  the  Episcopate,  previous 
to  Cyprian.  The  Pope  of  Rome  is  simply  a  bishop,  with 
no  Divine  autliority  over  a  single  Presbyter,  and  never 
possessed  it. 

The  Papal  and  Sacerdotal  schemes,  having  no  sup- 
port in  the  Holy  Scriptures,  rest  simply  for  acceptance 
on  garbled,  unauthentic  passages  from  the  Fathers. 
Both  are  invariably  destructive  of  evangelic  truth,  and 
have  corrupted  every  body  of  Christians  which  has 
given  them  countenance. 

A  writer  in  the  Christian  Observe)',  November,  1853, 
p.  745,  reviewing  the  mission  and  martyrdom  of  St. 
Peter,  remarks  : 

"  We  readily  admit  that,  till  we  had  read  Mr.  Simon's 
work,  we  were  accustomed  to  understand  these  jiassages 
in  the  popular  sense  ;  and  to  suppose  that  Peter,  as  well 
as  Paul,  visited  that  city  and  transacted  important 
matters  there." 

As  this  testimony  was  presented  (if  the  language  is 
that  of  Irenoeus)  nearly  a  century  and  a  half  after  the 
supposed  event — an  event  unnoticed  by  any  authentic 
writing  preceding  the  time  of  this  author — we  are  justi- 
fied in  declining  to  receive  it.  For  with  Ellendorf  we 
may  rightl}'^  believe  that,  "  no  testimon}^  of  the  Fathers, 
made  a  hundred  and  more  3^ears  afterward,  can  impart 
credibility."  And  with  Sciarelli,  in  the  debate  in  Rome 
on  Peter  in  1872,  p.  24  :  "  We  must  distinguish  the  value 
and  force  of  tradition  according  as  it  is  brought  forward 
to  coroborate  doctrine  or  fact.  When  we  are  treating 
of  facts,  not  of  doctrines,  tradition  must  be  divided  into 
two  periods.  In  the  first  is  to  be  placed  the  testimony 
of  those  who  lived  shortly  after  the  facts  to  be  estab- 
lished ;  in  the  second,  the  testimony  of  those  who  fol- 


IREN^US.  163 

lowed  in  the  course  of  years.  Testimonies  of  the  first 
period  have  a  certain  value,  but  those  of  the  second 
period,  without  any  of  the  first,  have  no  vahie  of  any 
sort.  .  .  Then  what  avails  the  assent  of  tradition 
which  only  from  Irenseus  to  modern  times  has  testified 
in  their  favor?" 

"  The  nearer  we  approach  any  true  event,"  says 
SiiiMEALL  wisely,  "  the  more  numerous  should  be  the 
voiicliers  of  its  reality  and  authenticity  ;  and  that,  if 
dependent  on  tradition,  that  that  tradition  should  be 
proved." 

In  this  case,  unfortunately  for  Irengeus,  it  has  been 
shown,  that  there  is  not  one  authentic  voucher  for  his 
statements  with  regard  to  Peter. 

Moreover,  we  have  to  consider  that  Irenaeus  was  a 
Greek,  and  writes  in  this  language  ;  that  his  works  are 
not  extant;  and  wliat  we  have  of  him  is  in  a  Latin 
version  found  some  hundreds  of  years  afterward. 

Bates,  College  Lect.,  p.  58  :  "Irenoeus'  extant  work 
is  a  treatise  in  five  books  entitled  'A  Refutation  of 
Knowledge  falsely  so  called,'  written  originally  in 
Greek  ;  the  greater  part  of  the  first,  and  fragments 
of  the  other  books,  are  extant  in  tliat  language,  and 
there  is  a  Latin  version  of  the  whole  of  ancient  date, 
quoted  by  Tertullian  and  Augustine,  but  the  translator 
was  indifferently  acquainted  either  with  the  language 
or  the  subject." 

McClintock  and  Strong  Enc^'C,.  Art.  Irenseus,  "  The 
text  both  of  the  Greek  arid  Latin,  as  far  as  extant,  is 
often  most  uncertain,  and  this  has  made  it  a  diflicult 
task  for  translation  into  English." 

On  Irenaeus,  Encyc.  Britan.  says :  "  The  original 
Greek  text,  except  the  greater  jjart  of  the  first  book, 


164  WAS  PETER  EVER  AT  ROME? 

which  has  been  'preserved  in  quotations  by  Hippoly- 
tus  and  Epiphanius,  lias  been  lost,  and  the  treatise 
has  been  preserved  in  a  somewhat  barbarous  transla- 
tion." 

What  evidence  have  we  that  in  the  Latin  version 
there  were  not  changes  made,  to  manufacture  evidence 
to  establish  the  Petrine  Claim,  as  already  advanced  in 
the  Clementine  Legends,  and  in  forgeries  so  glaringly 
manifest  in  much  of  the  Igiiatian  Literature,  designed 
to  aggrandize  the  Episcopal  office  ? 

When  we  read  what  the  Roman  Catholic  Dupin 
states  with  respect  to  the  "  forging  ecclesiastical  and 
profane  monuments,"  and  how  "  the  Catholics  invented 
false  histories,  false  miracles,  and  false  lives  of  the  saints 
to  nourish  and  keep  up  the  piety  of  the  faithful,"  it  is 
manifest  how  little  credence  is  to  be  given  to  this  second- 
hand version  of  the  earliest  tradition  which  we  possess 
with  respect  to  the  presence  of  Peter  in  Rome  ;  Avhat  is 
there  to  fasten  the  chain  to  Rome  and  Peter,  when  no 
links  are  to  be  had  for  over  a  hundred  years  from  the 
Apostle's  death,     Dupin  Eccl.  Hist.,  Pref.  p.  8. 

THK    FATHERS    UNRELIABLE. 

MosiiEiM  says  of  the  Fathers  that,  in  their  age,  this 
among  other  errors  was  adopted,  "  that  to  deceive  and 
lie  is  a  virtue,  when  religion  can  be  promoted  by 
it.  .  .  I  cannot  accept  Ambrose,  nor  Hilary,  nor 
Augustine,  nor  Gregory  Nazianzen,  nor  Jerome." 

No  one  has  been  better  qualified  to  give  an  opinion  on 
this  subject,  and  no  Church  historian  has  a  better 
reputation  for  candor  and  accuracy  than  this  pre-emi- 
nently learned  Gottingen  professor.  How,  earlier,  in  the 
case  of  Dionysius  of  Corinth,  the  works  of  the  Fathers 


THE  FATHERS   UNRELIABLE.  165 

were  designedly  corrupted,  we  have  sliown  in  the  pre- 
vious chapter. 

Erasmus,  a  most  erudite  Roman  scholar,  testifies 
strongly  to  the  common  Patristic  corruptions. 

He  writes  (in  Hilarium,  Epist.  lib.  28):  "What  is 
this  temerity  with  other  people's  books,  especially  those- 
of  the  Ancients,  whose  memory  is,  or  ought  to  be  sacred 
tons  .  .  .  that  everyone,  according  to  his  fancy,  should 
shave,  expunge,  and  take  away,  change,  substitute  : " 
and  again  (Athan.,  Epist.),  he  says  :  "  We  have  given 
some  fragments  of  this  sort,  for  what  purpose  ?  You 
will  say.  That  it  may  hence  appear  with  what  impiety 
the  Greek  scribes  have  raged  against  the  monuments 
of  such  men,  in  which  even  to  change  a  syllable  is  a 
sacrilege. 

"And  what  has  not  the  same  temerity  dared  to  do 
among  the  Latins,  in  substituting,  mutilating,  increasing, 
and  contaminating  the  Commentaries  of  the  Orthodox." 

The  Benedictine  Fathers  in  the  Preface  to  Basil's 
Wks.  (Paris,  1721),  remark  :  "  It  is  difficult  to  say  how 
great  diligence  must  be  applied  by  him  who  wishes  cer- 
tainly and  safely  to  decide  respecting  the  spuriousness 
or  genuineness  of  any  work  ;  for  it  is  wonderful,  since 
truth  and  falsehood  so  greatly  differ,  yet  one  frequently 
BO  much  resembles  the  other  that,  in  distinguishing 
between  them,  we  can  scarcely  avoid  error,  unless  we 
take  great  care." 

GiESLER,  i.  82  ;  "  The  later  traditions  respecting  the 
Apostles  and  Apostolic  men,  which  have  partly  been 
indebted  for  their  origin  to  the  wish  of  many  nations 
to  trace  their  Christianity  up  to  the  Apostolic  age, 
are,  to  say  the  least,  uncertain,  and  in  part  so  manifestly 
forged  that  they  sufficiently  prove  their  own  falseness." 


166  WAS  PETER  EVER  AT  ROME? 

"I  impute,"  says  Daille,  On  the  Fatliers,  p,  16,  "a 
great  part  of  the  cause  of  the  mischief  to  tliose  men 
who,  before  the  invention  of  printing,  were  tlie  tran- 
scribers and  copiers  of  manuscripts,  of  whose  negli- 
gence and  boldness  in  tlie  corruption  of  books  St. 
Jerome  very  much  complained  even  in  his  time,  that  is  : 
'  tliey  write  not  what  they  find,  but  what  they  under- 
stand :  and  where  they  endeavor  to  correct  other  men's 
errors,  they  show  their  own,' "  and  elsewhere  Daille  says, 
p.  20  :  "  Some  of  the  Fathers  made  use  of  tliese  kinds  of 
forgeries,  as  we  have  formerl}^  said  :  others  have  favored 
them  because  they  served  their  turn." 

It  seems  liardly  just  to  unfavorably  criticise  a  writer, 
when  we  have  no  reliable  evidence  that  we  possess  his 
authentic  works.  It  will  be  necessary,  however,  to 
dissect  this  imaginary  Irenreus,  on  whom  Romanists 
and  some  Protestants  greatly  rely  to  prove  that  Peter 
ruled  and  labored  in  Rome. 

It  is,  moreover,  with  respect  to  facts,  we  regret  to  say, 
that  Irenieus  is  proved  to  be  an  inconsiderate,  credulous, 
unreliable  writer.  Riddle  speaks  of  his  treatise  against 
Heresies  as  "badly  executed — from  the  pen  of  a  writer 
who  was  not  thoroughly  acquainted  with  either  Greek 
or  Latin  ;  it  contains  much  sound  and  valuable  matter 
mingled  with  much  also  that  is  weak,  useless,  and  erroiie- 
ous  ;  disfigured  by  many  extravagant  or  foolish  interpre- 
tations of  the  Scriptures." 

Among  his  statements  is  that  our  Saviour  lived  to  an 
old  age,  or  was  fifty  years  old  at  least  at  the  time  of 
his  crucifixion.  This,  he  says,  was  "the  unanimous  tra- 
dition and  positive  testimony  of  all  the  old  men  who 
had  lived  with  St.  John  and  the  other  Apostles," 

Another  is  "  that  Enoch  and  Elias   were  translated 


THE  FATHERS   UNRELIABLE.  167 

into  that  very  Paradise  from  Avhich  A<lam  was  expelled, 
there  to  remain  till  the  consummation  of  all  things,  and 
here  Paul  was  caught  ui^." 

Canon  Farrar,  in  "  Early  Days  of  Christianity," 
speaks  of  "  the  loose  translation  and  paraphrase  of 
Irenseus,"  and  furtlier  he  writes,  p.  398  :  "  we  are  thus 
obliged  to  discount  the  tales  and  remarks  for  which 
Irenn3us  refers  to  the  authority  of  '  the  elders,'  by 
whom  he  seems  chiefly  to  mean  Papias  and  Poly  carp. 

"  Now  Eusebius  does  not  hesitate  to  say  that  Papias 
was  a  source  of  error  to  Irenteus,  and  others  who  relied 
on  his  antiquity.  When  Irenaeus  says  that  the  Pastor 
of  Ilermas  is  canonical  ;  that  the  head  of  the  Nicolai- 
tans  was  the  Deacon  Nicholas  ;  that  the  version  of  the 
LXX.  was  written  by  Inspiration — we  know  what  esti- 
mate to  put  on  his  appeals  to  Apostolic  tradition. 

"  But  there  is  an  instance  of  mistake  or  credulity 
even  more  flagrant.  Tlie  whole  Christian  world  unites 
in  rejecting  the  assertion  that  our  Lord  was  fifty  years 
old  when  he  died,  although  Irenseus  asserts  it  on  the 
authority  of  *  Elders  who  received  it  from  the 
Apostles.'  " 

On  this  latter  point,  the  Ch.  Qiiar.  Review,  vol.  viii.  p. 
29,  states  :  "  The  historical  value  of  this  testimony  of 
S.  Irenffius  is  much  weakened  by  a  passage  in  an  earlier 
part  of  his  great  work,  where  he  asserts  that  all  the 
elders  who  knew  St.  John  testify  that  our  Lord's  minis- 
try lasted  from  his  thirtieth  year  till  he  was  between 
forty  and  fifty  (ii.  xxii.  5),  that  is  for  more  than  ten  j^ears  ; 
whereas  we  have  certain  fixed  chronological  data  in  the 
Gospels  to  dispute  this  view.  ,  .  The  received  view 
of  tlie  Roman  Church  is  that  a.  d.  29  is  the  true  date, 
following  the  statements  of  Tertullian,  S.  Clemens  Alex., 


168  )VAS  PETER  EVER  AT  ROME f 

Julius  Africanus,  and  Lactantius,  thereby  rejecting  the 
testimony  of  S.  Irenasus  on  a  point  Avhere  lie  must 
certainly  have  had  more  evidence  to  guide  him  than  in 
his  Chronology  of  the  Popes  ;  for  though  he  obtained 
the  latter  in  his  mature  life,  and  almost  certainly  at 
Rome  itself,  yet  it  is  clear  that  the  documents  there,  a 
very  little  later,  did  not  agree  with  his  statement." 

TuRRETiN  thus  objects  to  the  supposed  evidence 
of  Irenreus.     Opera,  iii.  149. 

"  To  the  testimony  of  Ircnoeus,  who  would  have  Peter 
and  Paul  to  have  evangelized  and  established  the  Roman 
Church,  lib.  3,  cap.  1,  §  3,  we  repl^^  (l)  that  he  has 
with  too  great  credulity  adopted  the  opinion  of  Papias, 
and  has  given  too  much  credit  to  the  tradition  of  the 
Roman  Church,  alread}^  vaunting  itself  on  account  of 
the  dominating  power  of  the  city,  and  boasting  of  its 
descent  from  other  Apostles  ;  (2)  His  adversaries  do  not 
trust  to  the  opinion  of  Irenoens,  but  often  contradict  him  ; 
(3)  The  words  and  views  of  Irenteus  do  not  agree  with 
the  Papal  scheme,  when  they  ascribe  to  Paul  and  Peter 
equally  the  founding  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  who 
governed  it  together,  and  handed  down  with  equal 
authority  the  Episcopate  to  Linus,  Jib.  5,  ch.  6." 

Cunningham's  Hist.  Theo.,  p.  181,  has  a  similar  view 
of  this  matter :  "  Irenseus  does  indeed  profess  upon 
several  occasions  to  communicate  to  us  some  information 
which  he  had  received  by  oral  tradition  from  the 
Apostles  ;  but  it  so  happens,  providentially,  that  in  the 
instances  in  which  he  does  this  most  explicitl}'^  and  con- 
fidently, he  alleges  in  one  case  what  contradicts  Scrip- 
ture, and  in  another  what  is  too  absurd  to  be  believed  on 
almost  any  testimony."  The  first  has  respect  to  the  error 
previously  considered,  with  respect  to  our  Lord's  life. 


SCRIPTURE  MISQITOTED.  IGO 

"In  the  otlier  case  lie  gives  a  very  cliiUliisli  and 
ridiculous  description  of  the  abundance  of  luxuries  and 
of  the  fertillity  of  the  soil,  especially  in  producing 
grapes  and  wine  to  be  enjoyed  in  the  days  of  the 
Millennium  ;  a  description  which  he  alleges  had  been 
handed  down  from  the  mouth  of  our  Lord  himself." 

In  order  to  see  how  utterly  absurd  is  the  language 
referred  to,  we  quote  from  Irenoeus,  or  the  Avriter  who 
professes  to  give  his  words. 

In  L.  V.  ch.  XXX.  we  read  :  "  Forasmuch  as  the 
presbyters  make  mention  who  saw  John  the  disciple  of 
the  Lord,  that  they  heard  from  him  what  manner  the 
Lord  spoke  of  those  times,  and  he  said  :  '  The  days  shall 
come  in  which  vines  shall  be  produced,  each  bearing  ten 
thousand  boughs,  and  one  bough  ten  thousand  branches, 
and  one  branch  ten  thousand  switches,  and  on  every 
switch  ten  thousand  bunches,  on  every  bunch  ten  thou- 
sand grapes,  and  every  grape,  when  pressed,  shall  yield 
twenty-five  measures  of  Avine,  after  the  same  manner  also 
a  grain  of  wheat  shall  yield  ten  thousand  ears.  .  .  Nor 
am  I  ignorant  that  every  ear  shall  have  ten  thousand 
grains,  and  every  grain  ten  pounds  of  fine  pure  flour.'  " 

After  this  statement,  we  may  regard  Jortin  as  correct 
when  he  says,  Eccles.  Hist.  i.l77  :  "I  fear  it  will  be  no 
easy  task  to  clear  him  (Irenoeus)  entirely  from  the 
imputation  of  credulity  and  inaccuracy." 

We  have,  moreover,  an  instance  of  misrepresentation 
of  Scripture,  in  this  writer,  of  which  we  would  hardly 
expect  the  original  IrenfEus  to  be  guilty. 

SCRIPTURE    MISQUOTED. 

This  is  seen  in  his  language  with  respect  to  Paul's 
meeting — "  the  bishops  and  presbi/ters  who  came  from 


1 7  0  WA  8  PETER  E  YER  A  T  ROME  f 

Epliesus  and  other  cities  adjoining,  assembled  in 
Miletus  ;  "  when  he  should  have  said  that  "  the  bishops, 
who  were  presbyters  from  Miletus,  alone  met  Paul," 
according  to  Scripture. 

On  this  matter  we  quote  from  Dean  Alford,  who 
writes  : 

"  Tiiis  circumstance  began  very  early  to  contradict 
the  growing  views  of  the  Apostolic  institution  and  neces- 
sity of  prelatical  episcopacy.  Tims  Irenaeus,  iii.  14,  2, 
p.  201,  'In  Mileto  convocatis  episcopis  et  presbj'teris, 
qui  erant  ab  Epheso  et  a  reliquis  2)roximis  civitatibus.^ 

"Here  we  see  (1)  the  two,  bishops  and  presbyters,  dis- 
tinguished, as  if  both  were  sent  for,  in  order  that  the 
title  might  not  seem  to  belong  to  the  same  persons. 

"  (2)  Other  neighboring  churches  also  brought  in,  in 
order  that  there  might  not  seem  to  be  e2nsco2)oi  in  one 
church  only.  That  neither  of  these  was  the  case,  is 
clearly  shown  by  the  plain  words  of  this  verse  ;  he  sent 
to  E^yhesus  and  summoned  the  elders  of  the  chxirch  (see 
below  on  dielthon,  v.  25).  So  early  did  interested  and 
disingenuous  interpretations  begin  to  cloud  the  light 
which  Scripture  might  have  thrown  on  ecclesiastical 
questions. 

"  The  E.  V.  has  hardly  dealt  fairly  in  this  case  with 
the  Sacred  text,  in  rendering  episcopous,  v.  28,  'over- 
seers,' whereas  it  ought  there,  as  in  all  other  places,  to 
have  been  '  bishops,'*  that  the  fact  of  elders  and  bishojys 
having  been  originally  and  apostoUcally  synonymous, 
might  be  apparent  to  the  ordinary  English  readers, 
which  now  it  is  not." 

The  Italics  are  Alford's,  and  show  his  honesty,  while 
they  display  the  want  of  candor,  and  the  unreliability 
of  this  writer  who  passes  for   Irenseus  ;  when  seeking 


SCRIPTURE  MISQUOTED.  171 

to  elevate  tlie  position  of  bishop,  whicli  he  himself  held, 
and  which  might  naturally  incline  him  to  the  tradition, 
that  the  Western  Church  enjoyed  the  peculiar  honor  of 
the  presence  and  work  of  Peter. 

We  present  another  brief  extract  from  the  supposed 
original  Irenoeus,  which  is  quoted  to  prove  Peter's  pres- 
ence in  Rome  :  "  Matthew  published  to  the  Ilebi'ews  in 
their  own  dialect  a  writing  of  the  Gospel,  while  Peter 
and  Paul  were  evangelizing  and  founding  the  Church  of 
Rome." . 

But  the  Gospel  of  Matthew  was  written  five  years 
after  our  Lord's  Ascension — long  before  either  of  these 
Apostles  could  have  visited  Rome.  Baronius  and 
Calmet  place  it  in  the  year  41  ;  Tillemont  before  39  ; 
Home  in  37  a.  d.  As  Greenwood  remarks  (Cathedra 
Petri,  1,  34)  :  *'  If  this  be  true,  it  is  manifest  that  neither 
Peter  nor  Paul  could  have  been  at  Rome  when  they 
founded  tlie  church  there,  consequently  Irenreus  could 
not  liave  conceived  the  personal  presence  of  the  Apostles 
as  necessary  to  the  founding  of  a  church  there,  nor  any- 
where else." 

It  seems  necessary,  therefore,  in  order  to  make 
Irenaeus  consistent  with  the  Scriptures,  and  to  be  worthy 
of  credit,  that  we  regard  him  as  using  the  term  "  found- 
ing," as  other  Fathers,  and  Roman  Catholic  writers. 
Thus  Baronius  writes  :  "  What  does  it  mean  when 
Peter  is  said  to  have  founded  the  Church  of  Antioch  ? 
They  are  quite  wrong  to  think  that  St.  Peter  must  have 
gone  to  Antioch  for  that  purpose  ; "  and  again,  "  As 
Peter's  chair  at  Alexandria,  in  which  it  cannot  be  shown 
that  Peter  ever  was,  was  founded  by  that  Apostle,  it  is 
quite  evident  that  his  presence  was  not  necessary  to 
found  even  a  patriarchal  see." 


n  2  WAS  PETER  E  VER  A  T  ROME  f 

TiLLEMONT  writes  :  "  They  hold  that  Peter  founded 
the  See  of  Alexandria,  and  that  he  did  so  by  the  instru- 
mentality of  St.  Mark." 

May  not  Peter  be  truly  said  to  have  been  the  founder 
of  the  Cliurch  of  Rome  tlirougli  the  instrumentality  of 
those  strangers  of  Rome  who  were  converted  by  his 
preaching  on  the  Day  of  Pentecost  ? 

"  It  may  well  be  believed,"  writes  one,  "  that  among 
this  multitude,  as  many  as  one  hundred  returned  to 
Rome,  believers  in  Christ.  •  By  these,  Peter's  spiritual 
children,  a  Church  in  Rome  was  constituted.  And  a  few 
years  after  St.  Paul  could  write, '  To  all  who  be  in  Rome, 
beloved  of  God,  called  to  be  saints.'  And  thus,  as 
Irenseus  himself  says,  whose  testimony  we  are  now  con- 
sidering. 'These  are  the  words  of  the  Church  at  Jeru- 
salem, by  which  every  other  Church  was  founded.' " 
(B.  iii.  C.  12.) 

Far  more  probable  and  reasonable  is  this  supposition 
than  that  this  venerable  Father  should  be  at  variance 
with  the  Scriptures,  and  make  a  statement  supported  by 
no  previous  Christian  writing. 

We  read  also  in  (Book  iii.  Ch.  3  of)  this  author  that 
"Linus  I.,  after  the  martyrdom  of  Peter  and  Paul,  was 
chosen  Bishop  of  Rome."  On  the  other  hand  Eusebius 
asserts  that  "  Peter  and  Paul  made  Linus  Bishop  of 
Rome." 

Thus,  we  see,  as  Chillingwoeth  writes,  "Some  of 
the  Fathers  are  against  others,  and  the  same  Fathers 
are  against  themselves." 

It  has  not  been  a  gracious  task  thus  to  expose  the 
errors,  and  cliildish  and  absurd  statements  of  one  who 
has  been  revered  as  a  Saint  and  worthy  Confessor.  It 
has  been  necessary,  however,  as  he  has  been  used,  by 


SCRIPTURE  MISQUOTED.  173 

interested  parties,  as  a  witness  to  a  historical  error  pro- 
ductive of  vast  harm. 

We  are  compelled  to  believe  either  that  we  have  not 
in  the  Latin  translation  the  true  sentiments  of  Irenoeus, 
or  that  this  writer  is  undeserving  of  the  fair  reputation 
he  has  held. 

In  either  case,  the  statements  with  respect  to  Peter's 
Roman  residence  which  have  been  offered  in  evidence  as 
to  this  claim  are  utterly  unworthy  of  confidence,  and 
would  necessarily  be  thrown  out  of  any  Court  of  justice. 

Therefore,  the  ancient  testimony  most  relied  on  to 
establish  the  visit  of  Peter  to  Rome  by  Pajjal  authors 
must  be  rejected,  and,  as  with  the  figurative  interpreta- 
tion of  Babylon,  be  regarded  as  of  no  value  whatever  in 
the  inquiry  in  which  we  are  now  engaged. 


CHAPTER  XIX. 
**Zbe  tTropbies"  of  Calus. 

Careful  and  thorough  investigation  of  all  statements 
by  writers  of  the  first  two  centuries  of  Christianity,  with 
respect  to  the  life  of  Peter,  has  shown  that  there  are  no 
documents  extant  which  testify  to  a  visit  of  this  Apostle, 
in  any  period  of  his  life,  to  the  city  of  Rome. 

Tlie  last  writer  quoted,  and  regarded  as  the  most  im- 
portant witness  for  the  claims  of  the  Roman  Church,  we 
have  seen,  presents  no  testimony  worthy  of  credence, 
that  Peter  was  ever  personally  present  in  Rome. 

Irenseus,  to  whom  we  refer,  wrote  at  the  beginning  of 
the  third  century.  As  no  evidence  can  be  found  before 
his  time  with  respect  to  the  Apostle's  residence  in  Rome, 
the  case  might  be  closed  here  ;  but  inasmuch  as  we  wish 
to  leave  no  point  unsettled  with  respect  to  this  question, 
which  nearly  200,000,000  of  nominal  Christians  regard 
as  of  vital,  essential  importance,  we  shall  notice  other 
ancient  writers  who  are  claimed  by  Roman,  and  some 
Protestant  authors,  as  important  witnesses  to  establish 
the  fact  of  the  visit  of  Peter  to  Rome. 

"The  conclusion  which  follows  from  the  fact  of  St. 
Peter  being  Bishop  of  Rome  is  important,  and  one  which 
every  Catholic  looks  upon  as  the  foundation  of  his 
faith." 

So  writes  Rev.  S.  B.  Smith,  D.  D.,  in  his  "  Teachings 
of  tlie  Holy  Catholic   Church,"  New  York,  1884,  with 

174 


"THE  TROPHIES"   OF  CAIU8.  1^5 

the  imprimatur  of  Cardinals  McCIoskey  and  Gibbons, 
Bishops  Gihuour,  Lyncli,  and  Elder. 

Tiiis  statement  establishes  the  importance  of  our  ques- 
tion, and  justifies  the  expenditure  of  time  and  labor  here 
bestowed  upon  it.  If  we  have  removed  that  which  is  the 
Foundation  of  that  church,  according  to  the  authorities 
above  presented  ;  if  our  conclusions  are  sound  and  true, 
where  is  the  standing  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  and  of  what 
value  are  her  exclusive,  arrogant,  and  damnatory  claims  ? 

The  existence  of  St.  Peter's  Church,  and  the  assertion 
that  it  is  built  on  the  spot  where  the  Apostle  was  cruci- 
fied, by  order  of  ISTero,  confirms  multitudes  in  their  belief 
of  Peter's  martrydom  in  Rome.  The  statement  upon 
which  that  claim  is  founded  is  that  of  Caius,  or  Gaius, 
an  ecclesiastical  writer  of  Rome  under  Bishop  Zephy- 
rinus,  A.  d.  215,  who  is  quoted  by  Eusebius  (ii.  25). 
Bishop  Lightfoot  suggests  that  Caius  and  Hippolytus 
were  the  same  person,  Caius  =  Hippolytus. 

A  Roman  controversalist  writes  in  the  London  Times, 
January  16,  1851  :  "That  Peter  founded  the  Church  at 
Rome  is  expressly  asserted  by  Caius  (apud  Ens.  Lib. 
ii.  c.  24,  alias  25),  a  priest  of  Rome  under  Pope  Zephy- 
rinus,  a.  d.  202  and  218,  who  relates  that  his  body  was 
then  (buried)  on  the  Vatican  Hill,  and  that  of  St.  Paul 
on  the  Ostian  Road." 

Father  McCorry,  another  Roman  author,  examining 
this  question,  says:  "The  sixth  witness  is  Caius — a 
Roman — whose  words  are  peculiarly  touching.  He  de- 
clares :  '  I  can  point  out  to  you  the  trophies  of  the 
Apostles  Peter  and  Paul.  For  whether  you  direct  your 
footsteps  to  the  Vatican,  or  to  tlie  Ostian  way,  the 
trophies  of  those  who  founded  the  Roman  Church  pre- 
sent themselves  to  our  view.'  " 


1V6  WAS  PETER  EVER  AT  ROME? 

Baronius,  Valesius,  and  Feuardent  among  Roman,  and 
Pearson  and  Lardner  among  Protestant  writers,  appeal 
to  the  testimony  of  Caius.  It  would  be  astonishing,  if 
we  knew  not  the  ways  of  some  Roman  controversal- 
ists,  to  learn  that  Caius  does  not  insert  the  names  of 
either  Peter  or  Paul  in  his  statement,  as  quoted  by 
Eusebius. 

We  give  the  language  of  Caius  in  the  version  of 
Ellendorf,  Roman  Catholic  Professor  :  "  I  can  show 
you  the  monuments  ( Troplupo)  of  the  Apostles ;  for 
when  you  go  out  to  the  Vatican,  o-x  to  the  road  to  Ostia, 
you  will  find  the  same  monuments  of  those  who  founded 
this  Church"  (Eusebius  ii.  25). 

Ellendorf  further  proceeds  :  "  If  we  suppose  this  to  be 
authentic  it  proves  nothing  at  all.  The  monuments  (or 
tropliies)  may  signify  graves  ;  but  who  sa3's  that  these 
'monuments  of  the  Apostles'  were  the  graves  of  Peter 
and  Paul?  Those  men  are  called  Apostles  in  the  Holy 
Scriptures  and  b}^  the  Fathers,  not  onl}^  who  were  the 
Apostles  specially,  but  likewise  their  pupils  and  followers. 
Thus  Luke  (Acts  xiv.  13)  names  Barnabas  an  Apostle  ; 
so  Paul  often  calls  Titus,  Timothy,  Silas,  etc.,  his  fellow 
Apostles  ;  so  Clemens  of  Rome  is  called  by  Clement  of 
Alexandria,  who  was  a  contemporary  of  Caius,  an  Apostle. 
(Stromata,  iv.  17.)  Among  the  Apostles,  also,  to  whose 
graves  Caius  points,  we  may  properl}^  understand  those 
of  Paul,  and  many  of  his  companions  who,  with  him, 
founded  the  Church  at  Rome,  and  who  died  there  with 
him,  or  after  him,  in  the  faith.  The  addition,  that  they 
were  the  graves  of  those  who  founded  the  Church  of 
Rome,  necessarily  j^oints  to  the  interpretation  ;  while  it 
is  a  matter  of  fact,  according  to  the  Holy  Scriptures,  that 
the  Church  of  Rome  \\?l^  founded  by  Paid  and  his  dis- 


''THE  TROPUIES"   OF  CAIU8.  1V7 

ciples,  but  in  no  wise  by  Peter  and  his  followers." — Bib. 
Sac,  January,  1859. 

Thus  reasons  this  learned  and  candid  Roman  Catholic. 
Moreover,  the  existence  of  monuments  or  trophies  to  any 
Apostle,  is  no  evidence  of  the  burial  of  that  person 
in  tliat  particular  city.  Ancient  writers  tell  us  that  it 
was  customary  to  erect  such  memorials  to  the  departed 
worthies  in  all  the  principal  cities. 

Thus,  Stephen  had  a  trophy  in  Ancona  ;  Peter  at  Con- 
stantinople, in  the  days  of  Eusebius  ;  St.  Lawrence  at 
Ravenna,  though  far  from  the  place  of  his  martyrdom  ; 
and  Ignatius  at  Antioch,  though  he  suffered  in  Rome. 
The  authorities  on  this  point  may  be  seen  in  Simon's 
"Mission  and  Martyrdom  of  Peter,"  p.  88. 

Baronius,  the  Roman  historian,  writes  :  "The  least 
fragment  of  the  relics  of  any  saint  is  equivalent  to  the 
entire  of  that  saint's  body  "  (Index)  ;  and,  again  (a.  d. 
55,  par.  15)  :  "Each  city  imagined  itself  possessed  of 
the  Martyr's  blood,  on  account  of  the  trophy  or  tomb 
erected  in  consequence  of  its  efficacy." 

The  criticism  of  Bouzique,  the  French  jurist,  is  to 
this  effect :  "  Evidently,  he  (Eusebius)  makes  the  (pas- 
sage of  Cains)  say  more  than  the  words  involve.  Euse- 
bius, who  never  saw  Rome,  may  in  good  faith  have 
made  a  mistake  here,  misled  by  the  legend  which  was 
tlien  accounted  veritable  history.  .  .  The  inscription 
on  these  monuments,  without  date,  and  which  are  not 
mentioned  by  either  Irenoeus,  or  Justin,  or  Clement  of 
Rome,  or  any  author  of  the  first  two  centuries,  proves 
nothing  else  than  that  at  the  epocli  when  thej''  were  raised 
the  legend  was  accepted  by  the  Romans  "  (vol.  i.  369). 

Shepherd,  in  his  "  History  of  the  Church  of  Rome," 

p.  532,  well  remarks  :     "The  attempts  to  prove  that  St. 
13 


178  WAS  PETER  EVER  AT  ROME? 

Peter  had  been  at  Rome  by  quoting  the  inscription  on 
the  tombstones  there,  and  Caius  to  confirm  them,  and 
Dionysiiis  of  Corinth  to  prove  that  Peter  had  been  in 
Italy  (all  forgeries,  I  have  no  doubt),  furnish  a  most 
conclusive  argument  against  Supremacy.  The  Avriter 
(it  cannot  be  Eusebius)  tells  us  he  adduces  these  things, 
*  that  the  history  of  Peter  dying  at  Rome  may  be  the 
more  accredited.'  Accredited  ?  If  the  Roman  theory 
be  true  the  Supremacy  Avhich  was  founded  had  been  a 
constant  fact  before  the  e^^es  of  the  Church  for  the  pre- 
vious 300  years.  .  .  Objection,  then,  to  believing  that 
Peter  had  died  at  Rome,  there  could  have  been  none. 
There  might  have  been  doubts  a.  d.  70  ;  but  a.  d.  330, 
after  an  admitted  authority  of  three  centuries,  there 
could  have  been  none — that  is,  if  the  Roman  story  be 
true.  But  if  the  unbelievers  be  so  numerous  as  to  attract 
the  notice  of  the  historian,  or,  rather,  if  this  is  an  inser- 
tion into  the  history  of  Eusebius,  the  Supremacy,  founded 
upon  St.  Peter  having  died  at  Rome,  must  be  a  fable." 

Neander  on  Cains,  i.  380,  remarks  :  "These  graves 
do  not  furnish  incontestible  evidence.  When  the  report 
was  once  set  afloat,  the  designation  of  the  locality  wliere 
the  Apostles  were  buried  could  easil}'^  be  added." 

"  Jerome  iutei'prets  this  as  referring  to  the  graves  of 
the  Apostles  Peter  and  Paul.  Eusebius  does  the  same. 
But  this  is  putting  on  the  language  of  Gains  more  than 
it  expresses." — Sawyer's  Orig.  Christ.,  p.  48. 

"  When  we  look  at  this  statement,  we  find  that  it 
affirms  merely  that  the  Apostles  were  in  that  persecu- 
tion ;  the  town  where  the  martyrdom  took  place  is  the 
Christian's  troph}^ — even  though  not  his  tomb." — Platt- 
NER  on  Caius,  Descrip.  Rome,  ii.  152  ;   Banr  i.  256. 

"  With  respect  to  what  Eusebius  says  of  the  testimony 


ANOTHER  DIFFICULTY.  179 

of  a  presbyter  named  Oaius,  that  about  tlie  beginning 
of  the  third  century  he  saw  the  graves  of  Peter  and 
Paul  at  Rome,  it  may  easily  be  accounted  for  :  it  was 
the  age  of  i)ious  fraud,  when  the  relics  of  saints  could 
be  found  almost  everywhere  ;  and  in  the  next  century 
the  wood  and  nails  of  the  cross  were  discovered  !  Those 
who  can  believe  these  things,  may  have  a  credulity 
large  enough  to  swallow  up  the  testimony  of  Caius." — 
J.  OwEX,  Vicar  of  Thrussington. 

WiLLET  writes  on  this  subject,  Synopsis,  x.  13  ; 
"  How  shall  3'ou  believe  that  it  is  St.  Peter's  sepulcher 
which  is  showed  at  Rome,  seeing  you  have  made  so 
many  mockeries  already,  making  the  world  believe  that 
Peter's  body  is  sometimes  in  one  place  and  sometimes  in 
another  ?  Half  his  body  you  say  is  at  St.  Peter's  in 
Rome  ;  half  at  St.  Paul's ;  his  head  at  St.  John's 
Lateran  ;  his  nether  jaw  with  the  beard,  at  Poictiers  in 
France  ;  many  of  his  bones  at  Tiers  ;  at  Geneva  part 
of  his  brain  (Fulke  ad  Rom.  etc.).  You  see  we  may  as 
well  doubt  whether  Peter's  body  be  at  Rome,  as  in  any 
of  these  places." 

ANOTHER    DIFFICULTY. 

Another  difficulty  remains  to  be  considered  in  the 
argument  founded  on  the  words  of  Caius. 

Tlie  spot  where  Peter's  remains  arc  stated  to  be 
buried,  was  in  Nero's  magnificent  Circus,  surrounded  by 
altars  and  oracles,  where  no  corpse — much  less  that  of  a 
malefactor — would  have  been  allowed  to  be  buried. 
Here  was  the  site  of  Pompey's  theater.  The  site  is 
identified  by  the  Obelisk  erected  by  Ptolemj^  Pliiladel- 
phus  at  Alexandria,  which  was  removed  to  Rome  and 
placed  in  this  Circus. 


180  WAS  PETER  EVER  AT  ROME? 

Nardini,  in  his  "  Roma  Atitica,"  writes  somewhat 
ironically  :  "  If  the  bodies  of  St.  Peter  and  the  martyrs 
were  buried  where  St.  Peter's  Church  now  stands,  it  h 
strange  that  the  Circus  could  still  remain  there.  Per- 
haps Nero,  the  inhuman  author  of  the  Christian  mas- 
sacres, was  compassionate  enough  to  destroy  his  Circus 
in  order  to  provide  them  a  place  of  sepulture  ;  j'et  the 
Circus  was  certainly  standing  in  the  time  of  Plin}'. 
Perhaj^s  Nero  permitted  it  to  serve  two  ends  at  once 
— a  Circus  for  the  Gentiles,  and  a  Catacomb  for  the 
faithful." 

J.  C.  Gray,  Bib.  Museum,  iii.  261,  remarks:  "The 
first  and  best  evidence  of  the  Apostle's  suffering  at 
Rome  is  liis  *  trophy '  or  sepulcher,  in  the  Vatican  (Eus. 
ii.  25).  Now  it  is  certain  that  at  this  time  this  spot 
was  included  in  Nero's  magnificent  Circus,  surrounded 
by  altars  and  oracles,  where  no  corpse,  much  less  a 
malefactor's,  could  be  interred.  Then,  quoting  Nardini, 
he  adds  :  "  Having  myself  no  faith  in  Nero's  compas- 
sion or  toleration,  I  take  this  fact  to  be  conclusive  evi- 
dence that  Peter  was  not  buried  in  the  Vatican.  The 
conclusion  is,  he  teas  never  in  Home  at  all.'''' 

Ellendorf  takes  the  same  view.  He  argues  : 
"  Whether  these  monuments  signify  signs  of  victory  or 
graves  ;  yet  it  is  improbable  that  at  the  Vatican,  near 
the  tombs  of  the  Scipios,  that  is,  the  way  to  Ostia  or  the 
public  road,  there  were  the  tombs  of  the  Apostles,  and 
decorated  with  inscriptions,  at  a  time  when  the  persecu- 
tions raged,  when  the  populace  often  destroyed  Chris- 
tian churches  as  soon  as  they  discovered  them,  and  left 
nothing  uninjured  which  was  holy  to  them  ;  at  a  time 
when  the  Emperor  and  his  ofiicers  commanded  every- 
one to  blot  out  the  Christian  name." 


ANOTHER  DIFFICULTY.  181 

The  question  may  be  properly  asked  :  If  one  trophy 
be  recognized  as  genuine,  why  not  all  ? 

Take  for  example  what  they  call  St.  Peter^s  Chair, 
elevated  in  their  great  Cathedral  120  feet  from  the 
ground,  and  placed  under  a  tabernacle  of  brass,  in  honor 
of  which  Mass  is  celebrated,  and  before  which  Cardinals 
bow  themselves.  Tiiis  is  relied  on,  like  'Cains' 
Trophies,'  as  one  of  the  convincing  proofs  that  Peter 
was  Bishop  of  Rome. 

Cardinal  Wisemax  says  :  "  I  am  certain  of  the  mission 
and  presence  of  St.  Peter  at  Rome,  from  the  presence 
of  tlie  chair  of  St.  Peter  in  the  Basilica  of  the  Vatican." 

Wlien  the  French  held  Rome  in  the  beginning  of  the 
century,  they  chose  two  noted  Romanists,  Champolion, 
and  the  Abbe  Lanci,  Professor  in  the  Roman  Univer- 
sity, to  examine  tlie  mysterious  chair  as  to  its  origin. 

Lanci  makes  the  following  report  :  "I  have  examined 
the  chair  of  St.  Peter  at  Rome.  It  is  not  of  the  age  of 
Augustus,  but  belongs  to  the  fifth  century  of  the  Chris- 
tian era  ;  its  architecture  was  not  yet  discovered  in  the 
Augustan  age. 

"  To  my  great  astonishment,  I  found  in  this  chair 
twelve  little  plates  of  ivory,  on  which  were  scnlj^tured 
the  twelve  labors  of  Hercules  ;  so  that,  in  my  opinion, 
it  was  the  chair  of  one  of  the  Emperors,  or  of  some  con- 
sular man,  in  the  decay  of  the  Roman  Empire." 

ANOTHER    TROPHY. 

We  liave  room  but  for  one  more  description  of  a 
"trophy"  or  evidence  of  the  presence  of  Peter  in  the 
Imperial  C\tj.  The  Roman  Breviary,  which  has  the 
Inprimatur  of  the  Pope,  has  this  account  of  Peter's 
Chains :  "  During  tlie  reign  of  Theodosius  the  Younger, 


182  TT'^^  PETER  EVER  AT  ROME? 

vvlien  Eudocia  liis  wife  had  visited  Jerusalem  for  the 
sake  of  fulfilling  a  vow,  she  was  favored  with  many 
presents.  Above  all  others  she  received  the  illustrious 
gift  of  an  iron  chain^  adorned  with  gold  and  gems, 
which  they  declared  was  the  same  with  which  the 
Apostle  Peter  had  been  bound  by  Ilerod. 

"Eudocia,  piously  venerating  the  cliain,  afterward 
sent  it  to  her  daughter  Eudocia,  who  brought  it  to  the 
Pontiff  ;  and  he  in  turn  showed  her  anotlier  chain,  with 
which,  under  the  reign  of  Nero,  the  same  Apostle  had 
been  bound.  While,  therefore,  the  Pontiff  was  compar- 
ing the  Roman  chain  Avith  that  which  had  been  brought 
from  Jerusalem,  it  happened  that  they  became  so 
united  together  that  there  appeared  to  be  not  two 
chains,  but  one  made  by  tlie  same  workman." 

This  event  was  regarded  as  so  remarkable  that,  in 
honor  of  it,  a  Church  was  erected,  under  the  name  of 
St.  Peter  ad  Vincula.  Miracles  were  said  to  be  wrought 
by  these  chains  ;  devils  were  expelled  by  their  touch, 
and  diseases  instantly  cured.  The  1st  day  of  August 
is  set  apart  as  a  festival  in  honor  of  the  miracle  of  St. 
Peter's  chains. 

Is  further  proof  needed  of  Peter's  visit  to  Rome,  than  is 
furnished  by  the  Tropldes^  the  Chair,  and  the  Chains  f 

In  this  examination  we  have  seen  how  thoroughly  the 
supposed  evidence  of  Caius  fails,  in  like  manner  with 
all  other  testimony  whicli  has  been  presented,  to  prove 
the  improbable  story  that  the  Apostle  Peter  left 
Babylon  in  Chaldea,  with  its  numerous  Hebrew  popu- 
lation, to  wander  to  far  Rome  in  the  West,  to  take  part 
with  Paul  and  his  numerous  coadjutors  in  the  Church 
founded  and  superintended  by  the  Apostle  to  the 
Gentiles. 


ANOTHER  DIFFICULTY.  183 

We  close  our  examination  of  Caius  with  the  decisive 
words  of  the  JVbrth  British  Review,  November,  1848, 
p.  33. 

"In  tlie  first  place  it  has  not  been  considered  that  the 
words  of  Gains  are  only  by  Eusebius  referred,  evidently 
contrary  to  their  sense,  exclusively  referred  to  St.  Peter 
and  St.  Paid;  and  in  the  second  place,  the  supposition 
of  public  monuments  having  been  erected  to  the  Apostle 
in  the  second  century  at  Rome,  and  in  the  immediate 
vicinity  of  the  Vatican,  is  so  preposterous  that  it  is  sur- 
prising how  it  could  at  any  time  have  gained  even 
momentary  credence. 

"  The  Neronian  persecution  at  its  first  outbreak  was 
of  a  most  overwhelming  character,  and  the  assumption 
of- any  Christian  having  been  permitted  to  witness  the 
sufferings  of  his  fellow  believers,  much  less  to  pay  the 
last  honors  to  their  earthly  remains,  without  being  made 
to  share  their  fate,  is  wholly  inadmissible. 

"What  became  of  the  mutilated  bodies  and  scattered 
ashes  of  the  innocent  victims  to  a  national  calamity  and 
a  tyrant's  recklessness,  God  only  knows,  and  no  Christian 
probably  ever  knew  ;  and  as  the  principal  scene  of  their 
sufferings  was  the  very  locality  named  by  Caius  (Tacitus, 
loc.  cit.),  it  appears  to  us  scarcely  to  admit  of  a  doubt 
but  that  all  the  Roman  presbyter  meant  to  say  ^vhen  he 
wrote  the  words  quoted,  and  used  the  word  '  Apostle,' 
in  its  more  extended  sense,  was,  Whether  you  turn  to 
the  Vatican  or  to  the  Via  Ostia,  the  above  presents  but 
one  scene  of  suffering  ;  every  spot  reminds  you  of  a 
Christian  dying  for  his  faith  ;  every  stone  is  a  trophy 
of  the  martyrdom  of  those  who  constituted  the  earliest 
Church." 


CHAPTER  XX. 
C^ertuUian  anD  Ibippol^tus. 

That  the  aggrandisement  of  the  See  of  Rome  was  a 
leadmg  motive  of  the  ancient  authors  in  bringing  Peter 
from  Babylon  in  Parthia  to  the  Imperial  city,  has  been 
liere  freely  asserted. 

FouLKES,  a  Roman  Catholic,  in  his  "  Christendom's 
Divisions,"  i.  p.  23,  gives  some  warrant  for  this  charge. 
He  says  :  "  Rome  in  addition  to  any  mere  Imperial 
privileges,  had  another,  that  had  infinitely  more  charms 
for  Christendom,  namely,  the  pre-eminence  of  its  Apos- 
tolic origin, 

"  As  it  was  the  onlj^  See  in  the  West  which  could 
boast  of  that  distinction,  so  it  was  the  only  See  in  all 
the  world  which  had  been  founded,  not  by  one  Apostle, 
but  by  two,  and  these  the  greatest  of  all  the  Apostles. 
This  incorajDarably  more  than  the  other,  is  the  fact  so 
glowingly  dwelt  upon  b}'-  SS.  Irensens,  Tertullian, 
Cyprian,  Athanasius,  Augustine,  and  others  who  have 
testified  to  the  prerogatives  of  the  Church  of  Rome." 

Daubigne,  Hist.  i.  11,  explains  the  growth  of  the 
Roman  claim  :  "The  Bishops  of  the  West  favored  this 
encroachment  of  the  Roman  Pastors,  either  from 
jealous}'  of  the  Eastern  bishops,  or  because  they  preferred 
subjection  to  the  Pope,  to  the  dominion  of  the  temporal 
power.  On  the  other  hand,  the  theological  sects  which 
distracted  the  East,  strove  each  for  itself  to  gain  an 

184 


TERTULLIAN.  185 

interest  at  Rome,  Iiopiiig  to  triumpli  over  its  opponent 
by  the  support  of  the  principal  of  the  western  Churches. 
It  was  highly  flattering  to  the  Roman  bishop  to  be 
styled  the  successor  of  the  Chair  of  Peter." 

Davidsox,  Intro.  N.  Test.,  i.  412,  offers  another 
suggestion  in  this  connection  :  "  The  more  the  basis  of 
the  whole  tradition  is  examined,  the  lighter  it  will 
appear.  The  Babylon  of  tlie  Epistle  contributed  to  it, 
while  it  was  the  interest  of  the  Jewish  Christians  to  put 
their  leader  along  with  Paul,  in  preaching  to  the  church 
of  the  Imperial  city,  and  suffering  death  under  the  same 
Emperor,  Early  Christian  writers  were  credulous  and 
uncritical,  Tiiey  repeated  the  statement  of  predecessors, 
and  added  to  them  without  much  discernment  and  con- 
sistenc3\  To  judge  fairly  of  evidence  was  not  their 
talent." 

Daille  remarks  with  respect  to  early  Christian 
authorship.  On  the  Fathers,  p.  45  :  "  The  blessed 
Christians  of  these  times  contented  themselves,  for  the 
greater  part,  with  writing  the  Christian  faith  on  the 
hearts  of  men,  by  tlie  beams  of  their  own  sanctity  and 
holy  life,  and  by  the  blood  shed  in  martyrdom,  without 
much  troubling  themselves  with  the  writing  of  books." 

TERTULLIAN, 

Among  these  early  writers  and  advocates  of  Peter's 
visit  to  Rome,  TertuUian  (a.  d.  245)  is  among  those 
most  confidently  appealed  to. 

Owen,  Intro.  Calvin's  Tracts,  iii.  272,  saj^s  :  "  The 
many  authorities  adduced  respecting  Peter  being"  at 
Rome,  may  be  reduced  almost  to  two,  Irenmns  and 
TertuUian .  They  were  the  first,  as  it  were,  to  stamp  a 
kind  of  authoritv  on  this  report,  and  also  on  others  to 


186  WAS  PETER  EVER  AT  ROME? 

wliicli  no  credit  is  given  even  by  those  who  would  have 
the  Fathers  to  be  ahnost  infallible." 

Tertulliax,  an  advocate,  residing  at  Rome,  naturally 
sought  to  increase  the  influence  of  that  church.  He 
writes,  vol.  i.  486,  Oxford  Ed.  : 

"If  thou  art  near  to  Italy,  thou  hast  Rome,  where  we 
also  have  an  authority  close  at  hand.  What  a  happy 
Church  is  that  in  which  the  Apostles  poured  out  their 
doctrines  Avith  their  blood  ;  where  Peter  had  a  like 
passion  with  the  Lord  ;  where  Paul  had  for  his  crown 
the  same  death  with  John,  where  the  Apostle  John  was 
plunged  into  boiling  oil,  and  suffered  nothing,  and  was 
afterward  banished  to  an  Island." 

Here  Ave  have  a  third  Apostle  introduced,  the  more 
extensively  to  glorify  his  church — Irenaeus,  as  Ave  have 
seen,  Avas  contented  with  tioo. 

This  statement  Avith  respect  to  the  Evangelist  John, 
having  no  contemporaneous  authoritA',  discredits  greatly 
Tertullian's  testimony. 

Gloag,  Intro.  Cath.  Epis.,  150,  writes:  "  Tertullian 
Avrites  Avith  the  martyrdom  of  Peter  and  Paul  at  Rome 
the  story  that  John  Avas  cast  unhurt  into  a  caldron  of 
boiling  oiljAvhich  is  now  generall}''  regarded  as  a  myth," 

Bacox,  Lives,  p.  317  :  "Meisner,  Cellarius,  Dodw^ell, 
Spanheim,  Heuman,  and  others  overthroAV  it  entirely  as 
a  baseless  fiction.  They  argue  against  it,  first,  from  the 
bad  character  of  its  only  ancient  witness.  Tertullian  is 
known  as  most  miserably  credulous,  and  fond  of  catch- 
ing up  these  idle  tales  ;  and  even  the  devoutly  credulous 
Baronius  condemns  him  in  the  most  unmeasured  terms, 
for  his  greedy  and  undiscriminating  love  of  false- 
hood.   .    . 

"  In  this  decided  condemnation  of  the  venerable  Ter- 


TEETTJLLIAN.  187 

tullian  I  am  justified  by  the  example  of  Lampe,  whose 
reverence  for  the  authority  of  the  Fathers  is  much 
greater  than  of  most  theologians  of  late  days.  He  refers 
to  him  in  these  terms,  '  whose  credulity  in  catching  up 
idle  tales  is  well  known  in  other  instances.' " 

Greenwood,  Cath.  Petri,  i.  44  :  "  The  story  of  the 
immersion  and  safe  exit  of  St.  John  from  the  caldron 
of  burning  oil,  is  I  believe  abandoned,  by  all  judicious 
authors,  as  a  baseless  fiction." 

KiTTO,  Art.  St.  John,  Die.  Bib.,  states  :  "  Tertullian 
relates  that,  in  the  reign  of  Domitian,  John  was  forcibly 
conveyed  to  Rome,  where  he  was  thrown  into  a  cask 
of  oil  ;  that  he  was  miraculously  released,  and  then 
brought  to  Patmos.  But  since  none  of  the  ancient 
writers,  besides  the  rather  undiscriminating  Tertullian, 
relate  the  circumstances,  and  since  this  mode  of  capital 
punishment  was  unheard  of  in  Rome,  we  ought  not  to 
lay  much  stress  upon  it."  Corap.  Mosh.  Diss.  Eccles. 
Hist.,  i.  417. 

Brow^x,  Com.  on  John,  asserts  :  "  That  John  was 
thrown  into  a  caldron  of  boiling  oil,  and  miraculously 
delivered,  is  one  of  those  legends  which,  though 
reported  by  Tertullian  and  Jerome,  are  entitled  to  no 
credit." 

Meyer  styles  it  :  "A  manifestly  false  tradition." 

It  is  not  remarkable,  from  what  we  know  of  the  tem- 
perament and  habits  of  mind  of  Tertullian,  that  he  was 
a  manufacturer  of  traditions. 

Chambers'  Encyclopedia  describes  him  as  "  a  man  of 
strong  and  violent  passions,  w^ho  loved  and  hated  with 
intensity.     He  was  narrow,  bigoted,  and  uncharitable." 

Farrar  writes  of  him  :  "  He  often  seems  to  care 
more  for  the  immediate  victory  than  for  the  discovery 


188  WAS  PETER  EVER  AT  ROME? 

of  the  tru'th.  He  is  often  at  variance  with  himself, 
because  he  imjjrovises  his  convictions  ;  and  is  more 
intent  on  prostrating  his  opponent  than  on  examining 
the  ground  of  the  opinion.  He  often  condescends  to 
the  grossest  sophisms,  the  most  irritating  word-splitting, 
and  the  most  violent  abuse." 

Neandeb  thus  describes  him,  Hist.  i.  683  :  "  His 
fier}^  and  positive  disposition,  and  his  previous  training 
as  an  advocate  in  rhetoric,  early  impelled  him,  especially 
in  controversy,  to  rhetorical  exaggerations.  When  he 
defends  a  cause,  of  whose  truth  he  is  convinced,  we 
often  see  in  liim,  the  advocate,  whose  sole  anxiety  is  to 
collect  together  all  the  arguments  which  can  help  his 
case,  it  matters  not  whether  they  are  true  arguments,  or 
only  miserable  sophisms." 

Tertullian  accepted  the  statement  of  Justin  Martyr 
with  regard  to  Simon  Magus,  which  is  so  largely  embel- 
lished in  the  Clementine  fictions.  It  was  doubtless  from 
tliese  tliat  he  derived  his  view  of  Peter's  journey  to 
Rome. 

Of  this  Simon  Magus  fiction.  Green,  Apos.  Peter, 
p.  117,  states  :  "The  tradition  gathers  strength  as  it  pro- 
ceeds. Justin  as  we  have  seen,  in  the  second  century, 
brings  Simon  Magus  to  Rome,  but  not  Peter  ;  the 
writer  of  the  Clementines,  in  the  third,  brings  Simon 
Magus  and  Peter  together  in  controversy,  but  in 
Caesarea,  not  Rome  :  Eusebius  and  Jerome,  in  the 
fourth  century,  combine  these  narratives  into  a  detailed 
story  of  Peter's  bishopric  in  the  city,  in  the  course  of 
which  he  is  vanquished  by  argument  and  eloquence." 

As  an  evidence  of  this  conflict  in  Rome,  between 
Simon  and  Peter,  visitors  are  shown  the  marks  in  the 
stone   pavement  made  by  Peter's  knees,  when  Simon 


TERTULLIAN.  189 

fell  through  the  air,  by  the  power  of  Peter's 
prayer. 

Tertullian's  credulity  in  this  matter  is  thus  criticised 
by  Neander,  p.  454  :  "  Tertullian,  who  had  more  familiar 
knowledge  of  Roman  Antiquities,  might  be  expected,  it 
is  true,  to  know  better  ;  but  even  he  was  too  prejudiced 
in  such  cases,  too  ignorant  of  criticism,  to  institute  any 
further  examination  with  regard  to  the  correctness  of  a 
statement  which  was  in  accordance  with  his  taste,  and 
which  besides  came  to  him  on  such  respectable  authority. 
The  more  critical  Alexandrians  take  no  notice  of  the 
matter."  Among  his  false  and  antiscriptural  notions 
were  prayers  for  the  dead,  the  corporeality  of  the  human 
soul  ;  and  the  common  absurdities  and  extravagances 
of  the  Fathers,  in  regard  to  angels,  and  demons,  and 
kindred  topics.     See  Cunningham's  Doc.  Theo.,  p.  160. 

He  held  the  Papal  notion  with  regard  to  Peter.  He 
writes,  p.  471  :  "  Was  anything  hidden  from  Peter,  who 
was  called  the  rock  whereon  the  Church  should  be  built, 
who  obtained  the  Ke3's  of  the  Kingdom  ;  and  the  power 
of  loosing  and  binding  in  heaven  and  on  earth  ?" 

With  Rome,  too,  his  final  appeal  was  not  to  Scripture^ 
but  to  the  Church.  He  says  :  "  To  the  Scriptures,  there- 
fore, we  must  not  appeal.  ,  .  What  Christ  did  reveal 
mnst  be  proved  in  no  other  way  than  by  those  churches 
which  the  Apostles  themselves  founded.  .  .  Let  him 
prefer  those,  received  by  the  greater  numbers,  and  the 
weightier  authorities,  to  those  held  by  the  fewer  and 
less  weight3\"  To  give  Rome  the  predominance, 
through  a  triple  Apostolate,  Tertullian  transfers  Peter 
from  Parthia,  and  John  also  from  the  East,  to  be  com- 
bined with  Paul,  and  thus  glorify  the  See  of  the  Imperial 
City  :  and  this  on  the  strength  of  legends  which  he  as 


190  WAS  PETER  EVER  AT  ROME? 

a  lawyer  would  know  to  be  unworthy  of  credit.  When 
we  add  that  Tertullian  was  the  father  of  Sacerdotalism  ; 
with  his  other  errors,  we  may  regard  hira  as  the  advance 
guard  of  the  Papal  system. 

But  as  a  credible  witness,  this  retailer  of  fables,  this 
unscrupulous  advocate,  this  unscriptural  teacher,  can- 
not be  accepted  in  a  case  of  such  profound  importance 
as  we  are  considering.  He  adds  nothing  of  value  to  tlie 
arguments  of  those  who  hold  that  Peter  deserted  Baby- 
lon in  Parthia,  for  Rome. 

HIPPOLYTUS. 

This  author  (a.  d.  222)  is  quoted  by  Dr.  Samson 
and  others,  as  a  witness  in  favor  of  Peter's  visit  to 
Rome. 

There  is  much  uncertainty  with  respect  to  his  resi- 
dence. 

Neander  writes  concerning  him,  i.  681  :  "As  nei- 
ther Eusebius  nor  Jerome  was  able  to  name  the  city  in 
whicli  he  was  bishop,  we  can  say  nothing  more  definite 
in  tlie  matter  :  and  neither  do  those  later  accounts  which 
transfer  his  bishopric  to  Arabia,  nor  the  others,  which 
place  it  in  tlie  neighborhood  of  Rome,  deserve  con- 
sideration." 

Dr.  Cave  places  him  in  Aden,  Arabia  ;  Bunsen  at 
Ostia  ;  some  make  him  a  Roman  presbyter  :  while  otliers, 
endeavoring  to  reconcile  his  denunciation  of  the  Roman 
bishop  with  the  Papal  view,  regard  him  as  an  Anti- 
Pope. 

GuASSEN  on  the  Canon,  p.  312,  remarks:  "  Ilippolytus, 
one  of  the  most  learned  men  of  antiquit}'',  no  less  cele- 
brated in  mathematics  and  astronomy  than  in  sacred 
learning,  was  an  intimate  friend  of  Origen.     He  taught 


HIPPOLTTUS.  101 

both  in  tlie  East,  .and  in  the  West ;  for  having  been,  as 
supposed.  Bishop  of  Aden  in  Arabia,  he  came  to  the 
capital  of  tlie  Empire,  about  a.  d.  325,  labored  there  a 
long  time,  and  even,  as  is  believed,  underwent  martyr- 
dom there."  Guassen  regards  Aden  as  Portus  Romanus, 
and  adds  :  "  This  fact,  maintained  by  Cave  (Hist.  Lite. 
Sacr.  Nov.),  is  utterly  rejected  by  Mr.  Bunsen.  But  the 
argument  of  Cave  remains,  and  we  do  not  think  he  has 
been  refuted." 

Wherever  lie  Avas,  he  appears  to  have  had  little 
respect  for  the  Roman  bishop.  Farrar  says  of  him. 
Lives  of  Fathers,  i.  89  :  "  Hippolytus  occupied  a  posi- 
tion of  extreme  antagonism  to  two  Popes,  whom  he 
describes  2i&  fancying  themselves  bishops.  One  of  these, 
Zephyrinus  (a.  d.  202-217),  lie  describes  as  a  weak 
and  venal  dunce  ;  and  of  CaUxtus  (a.  d.  217-222),  he 
speaks  as  'a  cheat  and  sacrilegious  swindler,  an  infamous 
convict,  an  heresiarcli.'  We  remain  ignorant  whetlier  he 
was  orthodox  or  heretical,  a  catliolic  or  schismatic,  a 
priest  or  a  bishop,  a  Pope  or  an  Anti-Pope,  an  excommu- 
nicated sectarian  or  a  martyred  saint.  Dr.  Lightfoot 
has  suggested  that  Cains  and  Hippolytus  were  one  and 
the  same  person,  Cains  =  Hippolytus." 

Hatch,  Origin  of  Christ,  Ch.,  p.  104,  writes  :  "Two 
recent  Jewish  writers,  Annelini  and  Grisar  .  .  .  have 
endeavored  to  show  that  he  (Novatian)  was  the  author 
of  the  Philosophenomena  (more  commonly  but  without 
certain  grounds)  assigned  to  Hippolytus."  We  cannot 
wonder  that  even  Dollinger,  with  his  great  powers, 
failed  in  adapting  Hippolytus  to  modern  papal  ideas. 

This  author  utterly  fails  as  a  reliable  witness  in  this 
present  inquiry.  Of  his  works,  "Scarcely  one  has  come 
to  us  without  mutilation  ;  concerning  almost  every  work 


192  WAS  PETER  EVER  AT  ROME? 

we  ascribe  to  liim  there  lias  been  controversy  whether  it 
is  really  his." — Smith  and  Wace,  Diet.  Biog. 

And  when  we  read  his  language  about  Peter  and 
other  Apostles,-  we  see  at  once  that  we  may  class  him 
with  the  authors  of  the  Clementina.  We  read,  vol.  ii. 
130-34,  of  his  Works  :  "  Peter  preached  the  Gospel  in 
Pontus  and  Galatia,  and  Cappadocia  and  Betania,  and 
Italy  and  Asia,  and  was  afterward  crucified  by  Nero  in 
Rome,  with  his  head  downward,  as  he  had  himself 
desired  to  suffer  in  that  manner."  He  also  under- 
takes to  give  us  the  fields  of  labor  of  all  the  Apostles, 
and  the  manner  of  their  deaths,  as  for  instance,  Andrew, 
Philip,  and  Bartholomew  were  crucified  ;  the  two  latter 
with  their  heads  downward  ;  the  two,  James  and  Thomas, 
were  likewise  martyred.  John,  Matthew,  Jude,  Simon, 
and  Matthias  died  natural  deaths. 

Not  content  with  giving  us  the  history  of  the  Apostles, 
we  are  favored  by  this  marvelously  informed  writer 
with  the  fields  of  labor  of  all  the  Seventy,  whom  he  also 
enumerates.  He  includes  among  these  all  the  names 
in  PauVs  Epistles,  with  many  others. 

As  a  specimen  of  his  remarkable  knowledge,  we  give 
this  statement  :  "  Mark  the  Evangelist,  bishop  of 
Alexandria,  and  Luke  the  Evangelist,  belonged  to  the 
Seventy  disciples  who  were  scattered  by  the  offense  of 
the  word  which  Christ  spake,  '  except  a  man  eat  my 
flesh  and  drink  my  blood,  he  is  not  worthy  of  me  ! 
But  the  one  being  induced  to  return  to  the  Lord,  by 
Peter's  instrumentality,  and  tlie  other  by  Paul's,  they 
were  honored  to  preacli  that  Gospel,  on  account  of  which 
they  also  suffered  martyrdom,  the  one  being  burned, 
and  the  other  being  crucified  on  an  olive  tree," 

He  also  makes  bishops  of  o\ev  Jifty  of  the  seventy. 


HIPPOLTTUS.  193 

giving  us  their  names,  and  also  those  of  their  respective 
churches. 

Here  is  a  man  of  whose  residence  we  are  ignorant. 
In  writings  attributed  to  him,  we  have  a  great  variety 
of  statements  for  which  there  is  no  contemporaneous 
evidence,  and  which  carry  on  their  face  absurdity  and 
impossibility.  It  is  manifest  he  draws  on  his  imagina- 
tion for  his  facts.  He  adds  nothing  to  our  knowledge 
of  Peter's  historj'-,  No  one  is,  therefore,  warranted  in 
making  an  appeal  to  Hippolytus,  in  their  investigations. 

14 


CHAPTER  XXI. 

©rigen,  Clemens,  Cgprian. 

It  is  not  a  pleasant  task  to  remove  the  halo  which  has 
surrounded  the  early  writers  of  the  Christian  Church 
who  have  received  the  title  of  saints,  and  with  regard 
to  whom  distance  has  lent  enchantment  to  the  view. 
But  the  truth  must  be  told  that  with  regard  to  their 
writings  the  authenticity  of  much  is  doubtful,  and  they 
cannot  be  relied  on  to  prove  events  of  importance,  like 
those  which  have  here  been  investigated.  They  are 
credulous,  uncritical,  and  at  times  deceive,  to  carry  their 
point  and  to  promote  religion.     See  chap,  xviii. 

With  regard  to  the  history  of  Peter,  we  have  pre- 
sented the  testimonies  which  have  been  regarded  as 
most  important,  and  have  seen  that  for  a  century  and 
a  half  after  the  death  of  this  Apostle,  not  a  line  of 
evidence  which  would  have  weight  in  a  court  of  jus- 
tice has  ever  been  presented  to  prove  his  presence  in 
Rome.  Nothing  later  than  this  period  could  be  of  any 
value,  for  no  facts  bearing  on  the  case  could  be  sub- 
stantiated. Still,  as  the  Roman  Church  appeals  to  later 
eminent  writers,  we  shall  give  them  brief  consideration, 
as  this  is  sufficient,  we  think,  to  prove  them  valueless. 

Origen  (a.  d.  253),  among  the  most  brilliant  and 
learned  of  the  Fathers,  is  quoted  as  placing  Peter  in 
Rome.  He  says:  "Peter  appears  to  have  preached 
through  Pontus,  Galatia,    Bithynia,   Cappadocia,    and 

194 


ORIOEN.  195 

Asia,  to  the  Jews  wlio  were  scattered  abroad,  who  also, 
finally,  ejti  reXei,  coming  to  Rome,  was  crucified  with 
liis  head  downward,  having  requested  to  suffer  in  that 
way."  Eus.,  iii,  1.  Origen  differs  from  Tertullian,  who 
states  that  Peter  died  the  same  death  as  our  Lord. 

Of  Origen,  Adam  Clarke  tells  us  :  *'  He  was  a  thor- 
ough critic,  learned  and  pious,  but  credulous  in  the 
extreme,  and  capable  of  believing  and  teaching  tlie  most 
absurd  notions  for  grave  truths," 

Daille,  with  regard  to  the  authenticity  of  his  works, 
writes,  Fathers,  p.  6  :  "As  for  Origen,  Cyprian's  contem- 
porary, we  have  very  little  of  him  left,  and  the  greatest 
part  of  that  too  miserabl}^  abused  and  corrupted  ;  the 
most  learned  and  almost  innumerable  writings  of  this 
great  and  incomparable  person  not  being  able  to  with- 
stand the  ravages  of  time,  nor  the  envy  and  malice  of 
men  who  have  dealt  much  worse  with  him,  than  so  many 
ages  and  centuries  of  years  that  have  passed  from  his 
time  down  to  us." 

The  North  British  Review,  on  St.  Peter,  November, 
1848,  jD.  33,  remarks:  "It  is  possible  that  Peter  may 
have  gone  to  Rome,  stti  rsXei,  as  Origen  has  it,  but  there 
is  not  the  very  remotest  reason  for  such  a  supj^osition. 
The  latter  Father  informs  us  that  it  was  generally  con- 
tended St.  Peter  had  written  his  first  Epistle  not  from 
Babylon  in  Persia,  but  from  Rome  in  Italy  under  the 
symbolical  name  of  Babylon.  Here  Ave  have  the  key  to 
the  whole  tradition  of  St.  Peter's  sojourn  and  death  at 
Rome.  It  rests  solely  on  that  positive  error."  The 
reasoning  of  this  writer  appears  so  clear  and  conclusive 
from  his  examination  of  the  Patristic  controversy,  that 
we  give  it  in  full. 

"  We  say  the  syijibolical  interpretation  of  the  date  of 


196  WAS  PETER  EVER  AT  ROME? 

St.  Peter's  first  Epistle  is  a  positive  error.  Yet,  though 
an  anomaly  in  itself,  it  has  been  defended,  and  defended 
by  Protestant  writers,  too. 

"But  there  are  two  generally  acJcnowledged  facts 
which  bafl3e  all  the  most  subtle  arguments,  and  will 
irresistibly  bear  us  out  in  our  assertion  :  The  symbolical 
allusion  to  Rome  by  the  name  of  Babylon  was  not 
itnowu  before  the  Revelation  was  written.  The  first 
Epistle  of  St.  Peter  was  written  before  the  Apoca- 
lypse. 

"On  tlie  other  hand,  the  symbolical  allusion  to  Rome 
in  the  Revelation  having  become  generally  known, 
probably  a  long  time  before  the  presence  of  St.  Peter  at 
Rome  is  ever  mentioned  by  the  tradition,  which  we  have 
seen  was  not  the  case  till  toward  the  third  century,  we 
have  the  strongest  possible  reason  to  conclude  that  the 
tradition  derived  its  origin  from  that  allusion,  and  from 
it  alone. 

"  Thus  we  can  in  the  most  satisfactory  manner  account 
for  what  is,  otherwise,  altogether  unaccountable  ;  the  con- 
tradictory reports  of  the  tradition  in  regard  to  the  time 
of  St.  Peter's  arrival  at  Rome,  and  to  the  simple  fact  of 
his  death  at  a  period,  moreover,  at  evident  variance  with 
his  own  Epistles  ;  the  fabulous  history  of  his  combat 
with  Simon  the  magician,  and  other  absurdities  ;  and 
above  all,  the  absence  of  every  authentic  information  as 
to  his  Apostolic  labors  for  the  space  of  time  of  nearly 
twenty  years  (for  of  the  events  in  Persia  how  little 
comes  even  now  to  our  knowledge),  and  the  utter 
ignorance  of  the  lohole  Cliristian  Church,  during  the  first 
one  hundred  years  after  St.  Peter'' s  death,  as  to  his  ever 
having  set  Joot  in  Pome. 

"  It  appears  to  us,  therefore,  all  but  certain  that  St. 


ORIGEN.  197 

Peter,  as  he  chiefl}-,  since  the  time  of  the  council  of  tlie 
Apostles,  lived  and  tauglit  ;  so,  a  martyr  to  his  faith 
in  Christ,  he  died  in  Babylon." 

With  respect  to  the  manner  of  Peter's  death,  in  which 
he  differs  from  Tertullian,  as  stated,  we  find  no  con- 
temporaneous evidence. 

Greex,  Apostle  Peter,  171,  writes:  "Clement  and 
Irenaeus  knew  notliing  of  it.  Tertullian,  with  whose 
gloomy  enthusiasm  the  story  would  have  been  peculiarly 
congenial,  says  simply  that  Peter  had  a  like  passion 
with  our  Lord,  Origen,  as  quoted  by  Eusebius,  is  made 
to  say  that  the  Apostle  was  crucified  Avith  his  head 
downward  ;  but  this  seems  to  have  arisen  from  a  mis- 
conception of  Origen's  words,  which  simply  mean  that 
Peter  was  fastened  to  the  cross  by  the  head.  From  this 
misunderstanding  the  account  undoubtedly  sprang,  and 
Jerome  last  of  all  gives  the  legend  a  full  form.  A  stor}'- 
which  required  more  than  three  hundred  years  to  get 
into  shape,  and  which  is  besides  intrinsically  improbable, 
can  scarcely  be  otherwise  than  rejected.  The  manner 
of  the  great  Apostle's  departure  has  been  wisely  left 
in  uncertainty,  and  we  need  not  desire  to  raise  the 
veil." 

SiMON",  Mission,  etc.,  124,  speaks  of  another  uncer- 
tainty in  regard  to  Origen's  statement  :  "  Yalesius 
frankly  acknowledges  that  Eusebius  does  not  tell  us  that 
Oi'igen  attested  what  is  said  about  St.  Peter,  though 
Valesius  assumes  that  Origen  maj'  have  done  so. 
'  Eusebius,'  he  sa^'s,  '  has  not  clearly  pointed  out  what 
is  the  commencement  of  Origen's  words,  which  re- 
marks Father  De  La  Rue  repeats  in  his  edition  of 
Origen.  Both  these  writers,  therefore,  admit  that  we 
cannot  infer  from  what  Eusebius  savs,  that  Origen  had 


198  WAS  PETER  EVER  AT  ROME? 

ever  heard  of  tlie  conjecture  that  contradicts  the  Scrip- 
tural account  of  Peter's  martyrdom  at  Babylon." 

NouRSE,  On  the  Fathers,  Prot,  Rev,,  October,  1847,  p. 
310,  further  confirms  the  uncertainty  which  exists  with 
regard  to  Origen's  writings.  He  remarks  :  •'  These 
Fathers  are  not  only  made  to  say  what  tliey  never  did 
say,  but  are  introduced  as  silent  on  subjects  on  which 
they  did  speak.  Of  these  there  are  many  instances 
Avhicli  can  be  jDroved.  This,  too,  was  practiced  by 
ecclesiastical  writers  toward  each  other.  Thus, 
RuFFiN  professes  to  translate  Origen,  Eusebius,  and 
others  from  the  Greek  into  the  Latin,  but  there  is  scarce 
a  page  in  wliich  he  has  not  added  or  omitted  something. 
Jerome  admits  this,  and  recommends  Ruffin  for  it, 
saying,  'that  he  had  interpreted  the  good  and  useful, 
and  left  out  the  bad.'  The  Greek  text  of  Origen  is 
in  a  good  measure  now  lost,  and  we  have  to  depend 
upon  Ruffin's  translation.  Hilary  did  the  same 
thing." 

If  such  men  as  Ruffin,  Hilary,  and  Jerome  approve  of 
such  practices,  what  little  confidence  can  be  placed  in 
the  unknown  translator  of  the  lost  works  of  Irenaeus  ; 
the  Father  most  relied  on,  as  we  have  seen,  to  substan- 
tiate the  presence  of  Peter  in  Rome  ;  Irenseus,  wliose 
Greek  has  come  down  to  us  in  an  unauthenticated 
barbarous  Latin  version  ? 

If  we  have  Origen's  own  words,  and  his  statements 
are  true,  then  the  view  taken  by  Roman  authors. 
Popes  and  others,  of  Peter's  twenty-five-years'  Roman 
residence,  is  flatly  contradicted  by  this  author,  who 
says  that  Peter  came  to  Rome,  ETti  reXsi.  He  comes 
in  conflict,  too,  with  Eusebius  and  Jerome,  on  this 
point — another  case  of  Patristic  disagreement. 


CLEMENS,  CTPBIAN.  199 

CLEMENS     ALEXANDEINUS. 

Clemens  (a.  u.  192-217)  and  Cyprian  (a.  d.  250) 
are  also  appealed  to  in  support  of  Peter's  Roman  resi- 
dence. 

The  former,  accepting  the  tradition  of  the  Elders,  that 
Babylon  meant  Rome,. regards  Mark's  Gospel  as  Avritten 
at  the  latter  city,  under  the  supervision  of  Peter, 
though  the  date  is  not  mentioned.  He  has  also  his 
legend  with  regard  to  Peter's  wife.  He  says,  Clark's 
Ed.,  11,45  :  "They  say  accordingly  that  the  blessed 
Peter,  on  seeing  his  wife  led  to  death,  rejoiced  on  account 
of  her  call  and  conveyance  home,  and  called  very  en- 
couragingly and  comfortingly,  addressing  her  by  name, 
'  Remember  thou  the  Lord  ! '  Such  was  the  marriage  of 
the  blessed,  and  their  perfect  disposition  toward  those 
dearest  to  them." 

Clemens'  language  is  a  strong  condemnation  of  the 
unscriptural  celibacy  of  the  Roman  Popes  and  priests, 
which  is  defended  on  the  ground  of  a  supposed  superior 
purity  in  the  unmarried  state.  This  system  certainly 
seems  to  place  the  Roman  clergy  in  a  higher  spiritual 
condition  than  even  the  supposed  inspired  Founder  of 
their  communion.  Bat  this  is  only  one  of  the  numerous 
inconsistencies  of  that  Church,  with  Holy  Scripture. 

CYPRIAN. 

Cyprian,  Bishop  of  Carthage,  in  his  letters,  writes  of 
"Peter's  Chair,  and  the  principal  Church  whei'e  sacer- 
dotal unity  took  its  rise.  .  .  Peter,  also,  to  whom  the 
Lord  committed  his  sheep  to  be  fed  and  guarded ;  upon 
whom  he  founded  and  established  that  Church." 

But  as  "The  Chair"  was  commonly  used  to  express 
"  The   Doctrine,"   and    Peter   could   be   said   to   have 


200  WAS  PETER  EVER  AT  ROME? 

founded  the  Church  of  Rome  by  means  of  liis  converts 
at  Pentecost,  such  vague  language  presents  no  evidence 
that  lie  sujjposed  Peter  to  have  visited  Rome  in  person, 
which  is  our  present  inquir3^ 

Cyprian  spoke  of  Tertullian  as  bis  "  Master."  He 
appears  to  have  adopted  from  him  bis  sacerdotal  senti- 
ments, bis  reliance  upon  the  Church  and  tradition,  as 
tlie  ground  of  belief  ;  and  upon  Peter  as  the  Rock. 
And  adding  his  own  self-originated  scheme  of  Episcopal 
unity,  based  upon  an  uninterrupted  Episcopal  succession, 
be  corrupted  the  simplicity  of  the  Gospel  scheme,  and 
paved  the  way  for  Popery  with  all  its  errors. 

We  have  thus  far  examined  all  authors  referred  to 
on  the  question  of  Peter's  history,  who  are  worthy  of 
notice  in  this  examination,  save  one,  who,  though  later, 
has  furnislied  us  with  much  of  the  testimony  con- 
sidered. 

No  light  of  value  has  been  thrown  upon  the  inquiry 
by  these  writers.  As  to  Peter's  Roman  visit — we  may 
justly  say  with  Edgar,  Var.  Popery,  p.  TO:  "The 
cotemporary  and  succeeding  authors  for  a  century  and 
a  half,  such  as  Luke,  Paul,  John,  Clemens,  Barnabas, 
Hernias,  Ignatius,  and  Polycarpsay  nothing  of  the  tradi- 
tion. The  intervening  historians  between  Peter  and 
Irenoeus  on  this  topic  are  as  silent  as  the  grave.  Co- 
temporary  historians,  indeed,  say  no  more  of  the  Apostle 
Peter's  journey  to  Rome,  than  of  Baron  Munchausen's 
excursion  to  the  moon." 

LANCIANl's   DISCOVERIES. 

Before  proceeding  to  the  examination  of  the  state- 
ments of  Eusebius,  we  will  briefly  notice  a  Avork  by 
Lanciani,   a  distinguished    Roman    archseologist  and 


LANCIANPS  DISCOVERIES.  201 

explorer.  In  liis  "  Pagan  and  Christian  Rome,"  a  work 
of  great  interest  and  value,  he  devotes  twenty-five  pages 
to  an  attempt  to  prove  the  presence  of  Peter  in  Rome. 

A  Roman  Catholic  ;  accepting  the  Papal  legends  of  the 
Apostle's  residence,  bishopric,  death,  and  burial  in  the 
Imperial  City  ;  "  trifles  light  as  air  "  appear  to  him  "con- 
firmation strong  as  proofs  of  Holy  Writ." 

P.  123  he  begins  by  asserting  :  "  For  the  archaeologist, 
the  presence  and  execution  of  SS.  Peter  and  Paul  in 
Rome  are  facts  established  beyond  the  shadow  of  a 
doubt  by  purely  monumental  evidence." 

"Monumental"  evidence  is  strong  evidence  Avhere 
there  are  facts  to  back  it.  But  inasmuch  as  the  great 
volume  of  scholarship  outside  the  Roman  communion 
rejects  the  Roman  visit  and  residence  of  Peter,  and 
locates  him  at  Babj^lon,  the  Jewish  center,  and  his 
divinel}'-  appointed  field  as  the  Apostle  of  the  Circum- 
cision ;  something  more  than  assumption  is  required  to 
bring  him  to  Rome,  where  no  reasonable  motive  could 
draw  him.  Lanciani  appeals  to  DoUinger,  Bishop 
Lightfoot,  and  De  Rossi  in  support  of  his  views.  But 
Dollinger,  a  Romanist,  is  satisfactorily  answered  by 
Ellendorf,  De  Marca,  and  others  of  the  same  com- 
munion ;  Bishop  Lightfoot,  by  an  older  writer  of  the 
same  name  and  pre-eminently  fitted  for  the  investiga- 
tion ;  and  De  Rossi,  by  laymen  of  judicial  training, 
who  pronounce  the  Peter  legend  as  absolutely  devoid 
of  proof. 

Lanciani's  authorities  appeal  to  Clement  and  Ignatius. 
Dollinger  says  :  "Tliat  Peter  worked  in  Rome  is  abun- 
dantly proved  ;  that  his  presence  in  Corinth  is  obviously 
connected  with  the  journey  to  Rome ;  and  no  one  will 
accept  the  one  and  deny  the  other."     It  has  been  seen 


202  WAS  PETER  EVER  A2  ROME? 

that  tlie  language  of  Clement  and  Ignatius  bears  ratlier 
against  the  Papal  claim,  and  the  omission  of  Paul  to 
mention,  in  his  letter  to  Corinth,  Peter  as  a  fellow 
laborer,  is  conclusive  against  that  Apostle's  presence 
there.     See  p.  157. 

Lanciani  refers  to  the  Ebionite  "  Preaching  of  Peter," 
and  cannot  regard  it  as  a  "groundless  fable."  It  has 
been  shown  in  the  examination  of  the  "  Clementina," 
p.  150-6,  what  these  Ebionite  productions  were  worth 
as  testimony.  Lanciani  appeals  also  to  Eusebius.  The 
value  of  his  evidence  will  be  seen  in  the  next  chapter. 

P.  125  :  "  There  is  nothing  to  contradict  the  assump- 
tion of  his  journey  to  Rome,  and  his  confession  and 
execution  there.  .  .  The  fact  was  so  generally  known 
that  nobodydreamed  that  it  could  be  denied."  We  reply 
that  no  rational  motive  has  been  assigned  for  the  visit 
of  Peter  to  Rome.  He  had  abundant  work  in  his  proper 
field  of  labor  in  Bab3don.  He  is  not  connected  with 
Rome  in  the  Scripture,  nor  in  authentic  documents 
which  have  reached  us. 

Greenwood,  an  able  English  barrister,  rightly  says  : 
"  In  truth  no  positive  or  circumstantial  statement  of 
the  tradition  of  Peter's  residence  and  martyrdom  in 
Rome  is  to  be  met  with  in  any  Christian  writer  prior  to 
Eusebius.  .  .  With  the  exception  of  the  strange  gossip 
collected  by  Eusebius,  principally  from  Papias,  about 
St.  Peter's  pursuit  of  Simon  Magus,  and  the  composition 
of  St.  Mark's  gospel,  no  witness  to  the  fact  of  St.  Peter's 
presence  in  Rome  at  any  period  of  his  life  has  been  pro- 
duced, other  than  Eusebius  himself  ;  and  he  only  speaks 
to  a  belief  founded  upon  the  infirm  statements  and 
vague  allusions  to  which  we  have  already  adverted." 

Lanciani  alludes  to  monumental  evidences,  erected  by 


LANCIANI'S  DISCOVERIES.  203 

Constantine  ;  to  Eudoxia's  church  ad  Vincula  ;  to  the 
29th  of  June,  Peter's  anniversary  ;  to  children  named 
after  him  ;  likenesses  made  of  Peter  and  Paul  after  the 
second  century.  What  Eudoxia's  testimony  was  worth 
was  shown  in  a  previous  chapter.  Engravers  would 
likely  produce  likenesses  of  Peter,  for  the  same  reason 
that  tlie  silversmiths  made  silver  shrines  of  Diana,  for 
profit  ;  but  such  manufactures  no  more  proved,  in  the 
one  case,  that  Peter  liad  seen  Rome,  than  in  the  other 
that  the  image  of  the  goddess  had  fallen  down  from 
heaven, 

Lanciani  then  describes  the  Circus  of  Nero  and  the 
graves  near  it.  He  states  that  one  of  the  coffins  he 
found  had  the  name  of  Linus  upon  it,  though  it  might 
be,  he  acknowledges,  the  termination  of  the  name  Mar- 
cellinus.  On  the  authority  of  the  "Liber  Pontificalis," 
he  claims  that  "  Linus  was  buried  side  by  side  with  the 
remains  of  the  blessed  Peter  in  the  Vatican,  October 
24."  Now  what  is  tlie  reputation  of  this  "Liber  Pon- 
tificalis," on  which  Lanciani  mainly  rests  for  proof  that 
Peter  was  buried  in  Rome?  Neander  styles  it  "that 
untrustworthy  collection  of  the  lives  of  the*  Roman 
Bishops,"  vi.  8.  Powell  on  Succession,  p.  218,  Am.  Ed., 
states:  "That  this  Pontificale  is  a  forgery  is  proved 
by  numerous  authors ;  among  others  see  Howell's 
'Pontificale,'  Diipin's  'Bibliotheca  Patrum,'  Jewel's 
*  Defense.'  .  .  It  is  justly  denominated  a  forgery  by 
Dr.  Comber."  Foye's  "  Romish  Rites,"  etc.,  says  of 
it :  "  The  Pontificale,  or  lives  of  the  Popes,  the  Decretal 
Epistles,  and  the  Roman  Martyrology,  are  all  notorious 
forgeries.  The  two  former  were  gotten  up  for  the 
special  purpose  of  advancing  the  Papacy.  (See  Dean 
Comber   in    Gibson,   vol.   xv.   p.   97,   and   also   Bishop 


204  WAS  PETER  EVER  AT  ROME? 

Pearsoirs  Posthumous  Dissertation.)"  After  describing 
the  chair  and  a  statue  of  St.  Peter,  Lanciani  again  refers 
to  the  "  Pontificale  "  for  his  final  and  conclusive  proof 
of  this  question. 

The  story  is,  p.  149,  that  Constantine  placed  a  cross  of 
gold  over  the  gold  lid  of  the  Apostle's  coffin,  weighing 
150  pounds.  It  happened  in  1594,  while  Giacomo  della 
Porta  was  leveling  the  floor  of  the  church,  the  ground 
gave  way,  and  he  saw  through  the  opening  tlie  grave  of 
St.  Peter,  and  upon  it  the  golden  cross  of  Constantine. 
The  Pope  witli  two  cardinals  was  called  to  view  it. 
Looking  through  the  opening  the  Pope  beheld  the  cross, 
and  was  so  much  impressed  that  he  caused  the  opening 
to  be  closed  at  once.  A  manuscript  deposition  as  to 
the  fact  is  said  to  exist. 

Just  three  hundred  j'ears  ago  this  marvelous  sight 
was  seen,  and  this  coffin  of  Peter,  according  to  this 
legend,  there  remains,  a  silent  witness  to  the  fact  of  his 
burial  at  Rome. 

If  Rome  has  this  evidence  that  Peter  came  to  the 
West,  why  not  display  it,  and  put  to  rest  the  doubts 
with  respect  to  the  subject  ? 

The  connection  of  the  stoiy  with  the  **  Liber  Ponti- 
ficalis"  is  enough  to  destroy  its  credit,  and  since  Lanciani 
has  no  more,  nor  stronger  evidence  to  establish  the  fact, 
we  are  justified  in  asserting  that  there  is  no  monumental 
testimony  to  show  that  the  Apostle  Peter  was  ever  in  the 
city  of  Rome. 

It  has  already  been  substantiated  that  there  are  no 
documents  which  assert  the  facts,  which  are  worthy  of 
credence. 

Any  historical  assumption  which  can  produce  neither 
monumental  nor  documentary  proof  is  rejected  by  in- 


LANCIANI'S  DISCOVERIES.  205 

telligent  men  ;  and  though  there  may  be  ecclesiastical 
reasons  why  Peter  should  be  regarded  as  the  First  Roman 
Bishop,  to  sustain  the  Church  of  Rome,  her  Pope,  and 
lier  Priests,  in  tlieir  domination  over  the  consciences  of 
their  followers,  the  verdict  of  history  cannot  be  re- 
versed. Babylon  in  Parthia  will  be  regarded  and 
revered,  as  the  scene  of  the  labors  of  the  Chief  Apostle; 
as  the  spot  where  his  heroic  soul  departed  to  Paradise, 
and  from  which  his  glorified  body  will  ascend  to  be 
forever  with  his  Lord,  and  with  the  Church  of  the  First- 
born in  Heaven. 


CHAPTER  XXII. 

Busebius. 

One  of  the  most  remarkable  features  in  the  matter 
we  are  considering,  is  that  the  main  reliance  of  tlie 
advocates  of  the  affirmative,  rests  on  the  works  of  an 
author  who  wrote  over  two  centuries  and  a  half  after 
the  death  of  Peter.  Eusebius,  Bishop  of  Caesarea,  a.  d. 
325,  is  the  Father  of  Church  Histor}\  Dupin  writes  : 
"  Without  the  history  of  Eusebius  we  should  scarcely 
have  any  knowledge  not  only  of  the  history  of  those 
first  ages  of  the  Church,  but  even  of  the  authors  who 
wrote  at  that  time."  Scaliger,  another  profound  his- 
torian, states  :  "  All  we  have  received  concerning  the 
Church,  from  Trajan  to  Constantine,  Ave  owe  to  Euse- 
bius." 

Our  examination  of  the  authors  who  precede  Euse- 
bius, has  shown  that  they  present  no  reliable  nor  satis- 
factory evidence  that  Peter  ever  left  the  West,  to  visit 
the  city  of  Rome,  or  that  there  he  resided,  and  ruled 
the  Church. 

Eusebius  presents  in  his  history  some  vague  state- 
ments from  tiie  lost  writings  of  Dionysius,  Papias,  and 
Gaius.  Our  examination  has  shown  that  if  these  quota- 
tions are  authentic,  they  give  us  no  valuable  light  on 
the  question.  As  testimony  to  an  important  historical 
question  they  are  of  no  account.  The  advocates  of  the 
Roman  residence  of  Peter  are,  therefore,  compelled  to 

206 


EU8EBIUS.  20V 

rely  on  tlie  sole  opinion  of  Eusebius,  who  appears  to 
have  credited  the  then  prevailing  view  that  Peter  had 
visited  tliat  city. 

An  important  inquiry  suggests  itself  :  What  value 
did  Eusebius  place  on  his  own  statements  ?  He  writes 
(B.  i.,  ch.  1):  "Acknowledging  that  it  is  beyond  my 
power  to  present  the  work  perfect  and  unexceptionable, 
I  freely  confess  it  will  crave  indulgence,  especially  since, 
as  the  first  of  those  tliat  have  entered  upon  the  subject, 
we  are  attempting  a  kind  of  trackless  and  unbeaten 
path."  Again,  "  We  are  totally  unable  to  find  even 
the  bare  vestiges  of  those  who  may  have  traveled  the 
way  before  us."     This  author  with  respect  to  some  of 

his  statements  uses  the  Greek  terms  "  Phasi,"  "  eoiken" 

equivalent  to  the  French,  "On  dit"— which  we  may 
render,  "  It  is  reported." 

.  Edgar,  Var.  Popy.,  p.  VO,  thus  speaks  of  this  un- 
certainty :  "  The  fiction  of  Peter's  visit  to  the  metrop- 
olis of  tlie  world  began  to  obtain  credit  about  the  end 
of  the  second  century,  .  .  .  the  tradition  seemed  doubt- 
ful to  Eusebius.  He  introduces  it  as  something  reported, 
but  not  certain.  The  relation,  to  the  Father  of  Ecclesi- 
astical histor}^,  was  mere  heresa3\" 

Gavazzi,  in  the  contest  at  Rome,  1872,  says  emphati- 
cally :  "Michaelis  excludes  the  opinion  that  Babylon 
signifies  Rome.  Grotius,  instead,  finds  this  opinion  rea- 
sonable. Eusebius  does  not  find  it  reasonable  at  all. 
He  speaks  of  the  letter,  '  It  is  pretended  it  was  written 
from  Babylon,'  and  finds  that  intending  Babylon  for 
Rome,  *  too  daring  a  metaphor.'  And  note  the  words  : 
'  It  is  pretended  it  was  written  from  Babylon.'  Euse- 
bius thus  excludes  this  supposition.  But,  now,  if 
Eusebius  excluded  it,  what   matter  that    afterward  a 


208  WAS  PETER  EVER  AT  ROME? 

Grotius  should  have  come  to  admit  it  ?  And  Jerome  ? 
Jerome  sa^J^s,  in  his  conimentaiy  upon  tlie  14th  of  Isaiah, 
that  to  interpret  for  Rome  is  to  follow  Judaical  woi'ds: 
and  then  he  says:  '  Who  could  concede  that  Babylon  was 
called  Rome  ?  '  " 

Herzog's  Encyclopedia,  while  giving  due  credit  to 
the  good  qualities  of  Eusebius,  affirms  :  "  The  fidelity 
of  the  narrative  is  sometimes  invalidated  by  inaccuracy 
and  credulity  ;  sometimes  by  being  fitted  to  the  Pro- 
crustean bed  of  theological  prejudices.  Doctrinal  con- 
siderations obscure  and  narrow  his  historical  horizons. 
Even  chronological  mistakes  abound." 

CoNYBEARE  and  HowsoN,  St.  Paul,  etc.,  p.  712, 
Phil.  Ed.,  1877,  on  the  growth  of  this  tradition,  remark: 
"The  tradition  which  makes  Peter  Paul's  fellow 
worker  at  Rome,  and  the  companion  of  his  imprison- 
ment and  martyrdom,  seems  to  have  grown  up  gradually 
in  the  Church,  till  at  length  in  the  fourth  century  it 
was  accredited  by  Eusebius  and  Jerome. 

"  If  we  trace  it  to  its  origin,  it  appears  to  rest  on  but 
slender  foundations."  Referring  to  the  writers  previously 
examined,  it  continues  :  "  This  apparent  weight  of  testi- 
mony, moreover,  is  much  weakened  by  our  knowledge 
of  the  facility  with  which  unhistoric  legends  originate, 
especially  when  they  fall  in  with  the  wishes  of  those 
among  whom  they  circulate  ;  and  it  was  a  natural  wish 
of  the  Roman  world  to  represent  the  Chief  of  the 
Apostles  as  having  the  seat  of  his  government,  and  the 
site  of  his  martyrdom,  in  the  chief  city  of  the  world." 

The  Ciiuech  Quar.  Rev.,  October,  1888,  p.  226,  Rev. 
of  Livius,  says  on  this  subject  :  "  If  a  mistaken  view  of 
history  once  becomes  current,  it  does  not  become  more 
true,  by  the  number  of  times  it   is  repeated.     If  the 


LAYMEN  ON  EU8EBIU8.  209 

tradition  of  Peter's  Roman  Episcopate  can  be  shown  to 
date  from  the  third  and  fourth  century,  it  may  be 
repeated  ten  thousand  times,  and  be  none  the  more 
true  .  .  .  The  historical  proof  of  the  Petrine  claim 
consists  of  stringing  together  extracts  without  criticism, 
and  without  regard  to  their  authority." 

In  view  of  these  facts,  how  vain,  how  dangerous,  how 
indefensible,  for  a  body  of  Christian  men  to  make  the 
eternal  salvation  of  our  Race  to  depend  upon  a  supposed 
event,  for  which  the  only  reliable  testimony  they 
can  produce  is  the  conjecture  of  one  historian,  who  has, 
confessedly,  presented  no  certain  evidence  of  the  tradi- 
tion we  are  considering! 

LAYMEN    ON    EUSEBIUS. 

We  present  the  testimony  given  by  candid  laymen  of 
judicial  minds,  men  better  prepared,  generally,  to  judge 
of  the  nature  and  value  of  evidence. 

BuNSEN  observes  of  Eusebius  and  other  Avriters  on 
this  question  :  "They  were  evidently  men  of  the  East 
whose  knowledge  of  tlie  Western  church  was  notoriously 
defective  ;  who  wrote  centuries  after  the  Apostle's  da^^, 
and  were  evidently  doubtful  of  it  as  of  a  mere  rumor." 

BouziQUE,  French  historian  and  statesman,  writes 
with  respect  to  Gains,  quoted  by  Eusebius  :  "  Eusebius, 
who  never  saw  Rome,  may  in  good  faith  have  made 
a  mistake  here,  misled  by  the  legend  which  was  then 
accounted  veritable  history.  .  .  When  he  testifies  in 
his  own  name  he  employs  forms  more  or  less  dubitative, 
such  as  "  It  is  said,"  "  They  think,"  etc.  .  .  What- 
ever his  own  thought,  Eusebius  had  too  much  prudence 
to  contradict  the  common  opinion  of  his  Church  ;    but, 

as  historian,  he  could  not  deny  the  unlikelihood  of  these 
15 


210  WAS  PETER  EVER  AT  ROME? 

diverse  accounts  ;  hence  the  precautions  of  his  style  in 
the  narratives  of  the  last  years  of  the  two  Apostles," 
(Hist,  of  Christianity,  i.,  369.) 

Greenwood,  in  his  "  Cathedra  Petri,"  i.,  42,  remarks: 
"In  truth,  no  positive  or  circumstantial  statement  of 
the  tradition  of  Peter's  residence  and  martyrdom  at 
Rome  is  to  be  met  with  in  any  Christian  writer  prior  to 
Eusebius.  Thougli  he  was  himself  convinced  of  the 
authenticity  of  the  tradition,  yet  the  poverty  of  his 
proofs  shows  clearly  enough  that  it  had  not  made  the 
impression  upon  the  Church,  or  attained  to  that  maturity, 
in  its  view  which  so  important  a  fact,  if  onl}'^  tolerably 
supported,  would  lead  us  to  expect.  .  .  With  the 
exception  of  the  strange  gossip  collected  by  Eusebius, 
principally  from  Papias,  about  St.  Peter's  pursuit  of 
Simon  Magus,  and  the  composition  of  St.  Mark's  Gospel, 
no  witness  to  the  fact  of  Peter's  presence  in  Rome,  at 
any  period  of  his  life,  has  been  produced  other  than 
Eusebius  himself ;  and  he  only  speaks  to  a  belief 
founded  upon  the  infirm  statements  and  vague  allusions 
to  which  we  have  alread}^  averted."  Vol.  ii.  p.  xi,  he 
8a3'^s  :  "  Every  rational  inquirer  must  pronounce  a  tradi- 
tion to  be  spurious  when  he  finds  contemjjoraries,  eye- 
witnesses, actors  in  the  scene,  know  nothing  of  the  facts 
on  which  it  rests.  TertuUian  and  Dionysius  may  have  , 
believed  the  tradition.  There  is  no  doubt  that  three 
centuries  after  the  event  Eusebius  did  believe  it." 

McGavin,  a  Scotchman,  in  his  "Protestant,"  i.,  702, 
a  work  which  Robert  Hall  describes  as  "the  most 
powerful  confutation  of  the  principles  of  the  Popish 
system  in  a  popular  style  of  any  work  we  have  seen," 
and  of  whom  Edgar  says:  "He  was  a  man  of  sense, 
discrimination,  admirable  precision  and  honesty,"  writes: 


LAYMEN  ON  EUSEBIU8.  211 

"Nothing  that  these  fathers  (Origen  and  Eusebius) 
have  written  tends  to  prove  the  fact  of  the  Apostles 
having  been  in  Rome,  except  that  there  was  a  vague 
tradition  on  tlic  subject,  which  is  surel}'^  a  foundation 
extremely  slender  for  building  such  a  fabiic  as  the 
Church  of  Rome  professes  to  build  upon  it.  .  .  We 
know  how  difficult  it  is  to  come  at  the  truth  with  regard 
to  persons  who  lived  within  a  few  years  of  our  own 
time,  especially  if  no  written  mention  of  them  has  been 
preserved.  It  must  have  been  much  more  difficult  in 
the  first  stages  of  the  Christian  era,  and  in  the  disturbed 
state  of  the  Roman  Empire,  to  ascertain  an}?-  fact  with 
regard  to  the  life  and  death  of  men  who  were  so  gener- 
ally abhorred  and  so  cruelly  persecuted  as  the  Christians 
were,  except  what  they  and  their  cotemporaries  have 
written. 

"Though  the  writers  who  spoke  of  Peter's  having 
been  at  Rome  had  lived  within  fifty  years  of  his  death, 
they  would  not  have  been  able  to  ascertain  the  fact 
without  great  difficulty  ;  surely,  then,  when  two  or 
three  hundred  years  have  elapsed,  it  must  have  been 
impossible  to  know  anything  of  the  matter  with  cer- 
tainty. There  were  few  authors  and  no  2:)rinting  in 
those  days.  Real  facts,  with  regard  to  a  man  so  politi- 
cally insignificant,  could  only  be  transmitted  from  mouth 
by  persons  still  more  obscure  ;  and  by  the  time  of 
Origen  or  Eusebius,  no  man  could  tell  what  was  true 
and  what  was  not,  except  what  the  Christian  churches 
had  preserved  as  the  authentic  testimony  of  e^^e  and  ear 
witnesses  ;  that  is,  just  what  we  have  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, and  nothing  more  can  be  depended  upon." 

Simon,  the  English  barrister  who  spent  months  in  the 
British   Museum  examining  exhaustively  this  subject, 


212  WAS  PETER  EVER  AT  ROME? 

says:  "Eusebius  .  ,  .  tells  us  that  he  gives  all  the  facts 
that  had  come  down  to  his  times  ^si^ecting  the  Apostle 
Peter.  In  this  history  he  is  supposed  to  assert  that  St. 
Peter  was  in  Europe,  and  that  he  was  not  put  to  death 
(as  the  Scriptures  indicate)  at  Babylon,  But  it  will  be 
seen  that  he  asserts  neither  of  these  alleged  facts.  .  . 
Eusebius,  it  must  not  be  forgotten,  wrote  nearly  three 
centuries  after  the  events  in  question  could  have  occurred, 
and  had,  as  we  have  seen,  no  intervening  record  of 
them  to  advert  to,  althougli  there  were  no  less  than  150 
ecclesiastical  writers  who  had  preceded  him,  some  of 
them  extremely  voluminous.  His  sole  authorit^^,  there- 
fore (for  such  it  would  have  been),  could  under  such 
circumstances  have  had  no  weight  whatever.  No  his- 
torical event,  no  event,  even  merely  traditional,  has  ever 
been  accepted,  or  ever  could  be  accepted,  as  authentic 
upon  the  sole  testimony  of  a  writer  who  lived  so  many 
generations  after  the  supposed  period.  .  .  Eusebius 
asserts  no  one  thing,  important  or  unimportant,  that 
Peter  is  even  ever  said  to  have  done  in  person  at  Rome. 
Not  one  day  is  indicated  that  he  passed  there  ;  not  one 
spot  on  which  he  trod  there  ;  not  one  word  stated  that 
he  uttered  there  ;  not  one  person  mentioned  to  whom 
he  spoke  there."  (Miss,  and  Martyrdom  of  Peter, 
p.  144,  45.) 

R.  W.  Kennard,  Esq.,  another  able  London  advocate, 
referring  to  Simon's  work,  in  the  report  of  his  contro- 
versy Avith  McLachlan,  p.  49,  saj^s  :  "  I  boldly  and 
advisedly  assert  that  there  is  no  evidence  to  show  that 
St.  Peter  ever  was  at  Rome,  much  less  that  he  ever 
assumed  the  office  of  Bishop  of  Rome,  or  that  of  Uni- 
versal Patriarch."     He  fully  indorses  Simon's  Avork. 

An  American   layman,  Dr.   D.  F.  Bacon,  in  his  ex- 


LAYMEN  ON  EUSEBIU8.  213 

liaustive  *' Lives  of  tlie  Apostles,"  pp.  235-39,  writes  : 
"In  justification  of  the  certainty  witli  which  sentence  is 
pronounced  against  the  whole  story  of  Peter's  having 
gone  to  Rome,  it  is  only  necessary  to  refer  to  the  full 
statement  on  pp.  245-50,  in  which  the  complete  array  of 
ancient  evidence  on  this  point  is  given  by  Dr.  Mur- 
dock.  If  the  support  of  great  names  is  needed,  those  of 
Scaliger,  Salmasius,  Spanheim,  and  Bower,  all  mighty 
minds  in  criticism,  are  enough  to  justify  the  seeming 
boldness  of  the  opinion  that  Peter  never  went  west  of 
the  Hellespont,  and  probably  never  embarked  on  the 
Mediterranean." 

With  respect  to  Eusebius  Bacon  remarks,  p.  221  : 
"  Eusebius  enlarges  the  stories  of  Justin  and  Irenaeus  by 
an  addition  of  his  own.  .  .  From  this  beginning  he 
goes  on  to  say  that  Peter  went  to  Rome  in  the  second 
year  of  Claudius  to  war  against  this  Simon  Magus,  ■who 
never  went  there  ;  so  that  we  know  how  much  the 
Avhole  tale  is  worth  b}^  looking  into  the  circumstance 
which  constitutes  its  essential  foundation.  The  idea  of 
Peter's  visit  to  Rome  at  that  time  is  nowhere  given 
before  Eusebius,  except  in  some  parts  of  the  'Clemen- 
tina,' a  long  series  of  the  most  unmitigated  falsehoods, 
forged  in  the  name  of  Clemens  Romanus,  without  any 
certain  date,  but  commonh^  supposed  to  have  been  made 
up  of  the  continued  contributions  of  several  impudent 
liars  during  different  portions  of  the  second,  third,  and 
fourth  centuries." 

We  have  seen  how  the  authority  of  Eusebius  is  re- 
jected by  the  critical  minds  of  these  competent  German, 
English,  French,  Scotch,  and  American  laymen.  Ellen- 
dorf,  an  accomplished  Roman  lay  professor,  has  been 
shown  to  be  in  full  accord  with  their  views. 


214  WAS  PETER  EVER  AT  ROME? 

A  SUGGESTED  PARALLEL  CASE. 

Tlie  value  of  the  testimony  of  Eusebius  may  be  esti- 
mated rightly  by  presenting  a  parallel  case.  Let  us 
suppose  that  in  the  course  of  a  century  the  Church  of 
Rome  becomes  thoroughly  evangelized,  which  we  sin- 
cerely desire  ;  that  at  that  late  day  an  American  writer 
of  history  should  state  that,  in  the  j^ear  15V2,  the  greatest 
soldier  of  France  and  fifty  thousand  other  Christians 
were  massacred  b}'  Roman  Catholics  with  the  consent  of 
their  King  ;  that  the  Bishop  of  Rome  publicly  offered 
thanksgiving  in  church  for  the  event ;  ordered  a  Jubilee; 
a  painting  of  the  horrible  scene,  on  the  walls  of  his  palace, 
and  commemorating  medals  to  be  struck  ;  and,  more- 
over, urged  the  King  of  France  to  proceed  further  in 
his  exterminating  scheme.  Further  suppose  that  no 
preceding  historians  had  nari'ated  this  event,  and  that 
all  proof  presented  was  some  ambiguous  language  of 
three  writers  not  authenticated,  whose  works  were  no 
longer  extant.  Could  men  living  at  that  time  be  ex- 
pected to  place  reliance  on  a  story  of  that  nature,  of 
events  attributed  to  so  distant  a  period?  Eusebius  has 
no  greater  claim  for  reliance  on  his  fanciful  and  im- 
probable tale  about  Peter. 

But  how  came  a  writer  of  the  ability  of  Eusebius  to 
accept  tlie  tradition  concerning  the  journey  of  Peter  to 
Rome  ?  He  appears  to  have  been  deceived,  together 
with  Irenaeus  and  Tertullian,  by  the  statement  of  Justin 
Martyr,  with  respect  to  the  statue  at  Rome  to  the  Sabine 
deity,  Semo  Satigus  or  Sancus.  Justin,  who  knew  little 
Latin,  regarded  this  as  referring  to  Simon  Magus,  whom 
tradition  had  carried  to  Rome,  Avhere,  by  his  magical 
arts,  he  had  induced  the  Romans  to  rank  him  among 
the  gods.     Justin  makes  this  statement  in  his  address  to 


A  SUGGESTED  PARALLEL   CASE.  215 

the  Emperor  Antoninus.     Neitlier  Justin,  Irenoeus,  nor 
TertuUian  connects  Peter  witli  the  narrative. 

The  Clementine  fictions  do  ;  but  these  are  known  to 
be  "  unmitigated  falsehoods,"  as  we  liave  seen.  Euse- 
bius  not  having  been  at  Rome,  and  misled  by  tlie  lan- 
guage of  Papias,  Dionysius,  and  Gains,  which  we  have 
shown  to  be  untrustworthy^,  proceeds  to  commemorate 
the  circumstance  previousl}^  unrecorded,  except  in  the 
Clementina  :  that  Peter  traveled  from  the  East  to  the 
West,  to  vanquish  the  blasphemous  sorcerer,  Simon 
Magus. 

By  a  singular  providence,  in  the  year  1574,  there  was 
excavated  from  the  very  spot,  on  an  island  on  the  Tiber, 
indicated  by  Justin,  the  image  with  the  inscription  to 
which  he  refers.  It  was  recognized  as  a  heathen  deity. 
Jnstin,  like  Simon,  was  a  Samaritan,  and  knowing  of  his 
arts,  the  more  readily  imagined  that  the  Romans  had 
deified  him. 

Sawyer,  Organ.  Christ.,  p.  47,  writes  :  "The  error  of 
Eusebius  is  traced  through  Clemens  Alexandrinus,  a.  d. 
220,  to  a  misunderstanding  of  Justin  Martyr,  a.  d.  168; 
interpreting  the  inscription  of  a  statue  of  the  Roman 
Deity  Serao,  of  Simon  the  Magician,  Acts  8  :  4,  10,  18. 
This  mistake  led  to  a  fabulous  history  of  the  supposed 
combat  of  Peter  with  Simon,  and  the  supposition  of  his 
residence  at  Rome." 

GiFFORD,  Intro.  Rom.  Speaker's  Cora,  on  Eusebius, 
remarks  :  "  This  arbitrary  and  erroneous  combination  of 
traditions  which  had  no  original  connection,  may  possi- 
bly have  been  suggested  to  Eusebius  by  the  historical 
connection  between  Simon  Magus  and  Simon  Peter,  in 
Acts,  viii.,  or  more  probably  he  may  have  borrowed  it 
from  the  strange  fictions  of  the  '  Clementina,' '  Recogni- 


216  WAS  PETER  EVER  AT  ROME? 

tions,'  and  '  Homilies,'  and  '  Apostolic  Constitutions.'  It 
is  most  important  to  observe  that  these  traditions,  pre- 
served by  Papias  and  Clement,  have  not  the  slightest  con- 
nection of  persons,  time,  or  place  with  Justin  Martyr's 
story  of  Simon  Magus." 

Dr.  MuKDOCK,  in  his  Manuscript  Lectures,  quoted 
in  Bacon's  "Lives,"  p.  231,  after  presenting  all  the 
Patristic  authorities  claimed  with  respect  to  Peter's  visit 
to  Rome,  thus  concludes  : 

"  So  far  as  the  later  Fatliers  contradict  those  of  the 
first  three  centuries,  they  ought  to  be  rejected,  because 
they  could  not  have  so  good  means  of  information- 
Oral  tradition  must  in  three  centuries  have  become 
worthless  compared  witli  what  it  was  in  the  second  and 
third  centuries  ;  and  of  written  testimony  which  could 
be  relied  on,  they  had  none  except  of  the  early  Fathers. 

"Besides,  we  have  seen  how  these  later  Fatliers  were 
led  astray.  They  believed  the  fable  of  Simon  Magus' 
legerdemain  at  Rome,  and  his  deification  there.  They 
read  the  Clementine  fictions  and  supposed  tliem  to  be 
novels  founded  on  facts.  In  their  eulogies  of  Peter, 
they  were  fond  of  relating  marvelous  and  affecting 
stories  about  him,  and  therefore  too  readily  admitted 
fabulous  additions.  And,  lastly,  the  Bishops  of  Rome 
and  their  numerous  adherents  had  a  direct  and  an  im- 
mense interest  depending  on  this  traditional  history — 
for  by  it  alone  they  made  out  their  succession  to  the 
chair  of  Peter,  and  the  legitimacy  of  their  ghosth^ 
power." 

The  want  of  information  with  respect  to  the  Apostle, 
is  clearly  proved  by  his  glaring  mistake  with  regard  to 
the  time  he  ascribes  to  his  Roman  visit.  It  Avill  be 
observed  that  he  fixes  this  time  in  the  second  year  of 


A  SUGGESTED  PARALLEL   CASE.  217 

Claudius,  a.  d.  42.  But  the  Scriptures  plainly  contra- 
dict this  statement,  as  do  also  the  Roman  authors 
Cellier,  Baluze,  Pagi,  Dupin,  Hug,  Feilmoser,  Klee, 
llerbst,  Eliendorf,  Maier,  and  Stengel. 

The  value  of  the  testimony  of  Eusebius  with  respect 
to  the  presence  of  Peter  in  Rome  may  be  gathered  from 
the  opinions  of  the  learned  writers,  lay  and  clerical, 
here  presented.  They  agree  in  pronouncing  it  as  un- 
worthy of  acceptance  as  evidence,  on  the  subject  dis- 
cussed in  these  pages. 

We  respect  Eusebius  for  much  that  he  has  written. 
We  owe  to  him  the  first  formal  list  of  the  Books  of  the 
New  Testament.  He  has  handed  doAvn  to  us  the  names 
of  many  Christian  heroes  who  suffered  martyrdom,  with 
notices  and  historical  events  deeply  interesting  to  the 
Christian  Church.  But  he  little  imagined  that,  in  pre- 
senting as  history,  the  traditions  of  his  time  concerning 
Peter,  he  was  aiding  in  building  up  the  most  formidable 
foe  to  the  progress  of  Christian  truth  and  righteousness 
which  the  Church  has  ever  encountered  ;  and  whose 
work  of  evil  is  still  in  operation. 

It  has  been  seen  that  we  possess  no  authentic  state- 
ment before  Eusebius,  that  the  Apostle  Peter  ever  was 
in  Rome,  deserving  of  respect ;  and  that  Eusebius  had 
no  sure  evidence  on  which  to  base  his  belief  in  this 
matter. 

And  thus  the  chief  pillar  on  Avhich  the  Pope  bases  his 
claim  to  the  universal  Headship  of  the  Church,  and  the 
right  to  curse  all  who  reject  his  Supremacy,  has  no 
better  foundation  than  quicksand.  The  truth  of  history 
pronounces  this  Peter-Roman  legend  a  baseless  Fiction. 


CHAPTER  XXIII. 

firofeesor  IRamseK's  Cbeorg. 

A  WORK  of  great  interest  and  value  has  recently 
appeared,  entitled,  "  The  Church  in  the  Roman  Empire 
before  a.  d.  170,"  by  W.  M.  Ramsey,  M,  A.,  Professor 
in  Aberdeen,  and  formerly  Professor  in  Oxford,  pp.  494. 

Tlie  author  has  personally  investigated  the  country 
of  Asia  Minor,  and  has  written  ably  about  it.  A  por- 
tion of  his  work  is  devoted  to  the  various  persecutions 
of  Christians  there,  and  the  condition  of  the  churches. 

Chapter  xiii.  is  closely  related  to  the  present  inquiry, 
inasmuch  as  it  discusses  Peter's  First  Epistle,  and  the 
letters  of  Clement  and  Ignatius. 

The  theory  that  Professor  Ramsey  explains  and 
defends  is  :  that  the  language  of  Peter's  Epistle  can- 
not be  made  consistent  with  the  nature  of  the  perse- 
cution in  the  time  of  Nero,  but  must  refer  to  the 
Flavian  period  ;  consequently  the  Epistle  of  Peter  must 
have  been  written  as  late  as  a.  d.  80.  He  also  advo- 
cates a  twenty-five  years'  residence  for  Peter  in  Rome. 

His  words  are  tliese,  p.  281  :  "  They  (the  Christians) 
suffer  for  the  Name  (iv.  14-16)  pure  and  simple  ;  the 
trial  takes  the  form  of  an  inquiry  into  their  religion 
giving  them  the  opportunity  of  '  glorifying  God  in  this 
Name.' 

"  The  picture  is  here  complete.  We  have  the  fully 
developed   kind   of   trial   which    we   suppose   to   have 

218 


PROFESSOR  RAMSEY'S  THEORY.  219 

been  instituted  about  "ZS-SO,  and  Avhich  was  carried  out 
by  Pliny  as  part  of  a  fixed  policy  of  the  Empire  toward 
the  Christians.  These  circumstances  are  essentially  dif- 
ferent from  those  of  the  Neronian  period."  P.  242, 
"  Under  Nero  .  .  .  The  trial  is  held  and  the  condem- 
nation is  pronounced,  in  respect  not  of  the  Name,  but  of 
serious  offenses  naturally  connected  with  the  Name,"  etc. 

The  decision  of  this  question  is  naturally  dependent 
upon  the  locality  of  Peter.  Was  he  in  Parthia  in  a 
place  of  safety  when  he  wrote,  or  in  a  situation  where 
punishment  was  imminent  ? 

Our  author  concedes  that  we  have  no  accurate  informa- 
tion concerning  the  events  of  the  Church  in  this  period. 
He  says,  p.  253  :  "  In  the  dearth  of  contemporary 
trustworthy  authorities  we  are  compelled,  unless  we  leave 
this  period  a  blank,  to  have  recourse  to  hypothesis," 
and  p.  189  :  "  In  a  subject  of  such  difficulty  as  the 
history  of  the  early  Church,  a  subject  about  which  the 
only  point  that  is  universally  agreed  upon  is  its  obscu- 
rity," etc. 

We  have  maintained  in  this  inquiry  that  the  question 
was  one  of  i^robabilities,  and  that  the  position  that  Peter 
labored  and  wrote  in  Parthian  Babj'lon,  had  a  vastly 
greater  preponderance  of  probabilitj'^ — and  hence  the 
330  authors  quoted,  or  enumerated,  had  embraced  and 
defended  this  view. 

Professor  Ramsey  has  evidently  not  appreciated  the 
argument  for  Peter's  Parthian  residence,  else  he  would 
not  have  used  these  words,  p.  287:  "That  Babylon 
should  be  understood  as  the  Chaldean  Cit}',  appears  to 
conflict  so  entirely  with  all  record  and  early  tradition, 
as  to  hardly  need  discussion." 

Before    this    extreme    statement    can   be   received, 


220  WAS  PETER  EVER  AT  ROME? 

we  must  ask  our  author  to  answer  the  arguments 
of  Lightfoot,  Michaelis,  Tui'retin,  Edersheim,  and 
Bisliop  Wordsworth  ;  of  the  historians,  Neander,  Nie- 
buhi",  Guerike,  and  Knrtz  ;  Mihnan,  Robertson,  Stanley, 
and  Murdock  ;  of  Roman  scholars,  De  Marca,  Dupin, 
Hug,  and  Ellendorf  ;  men  who  represent  the  predomi- 
nating opinion  of  tlie  learned  outside  the  Cliurcli  of 
Rome  ;  autliors  who  assert  that  there  is  no  reliable  evi- 
dence tliat  Peter  visited  Rome,  but  tliat  he  lived,  and 
died,  in  the  East,  and  that  his  letters  were  written  prior 
to  A.  D.  VO. 

We  assert  that  Peter  must  be  established  at  Rome, 
before  we  can  admit  our  author's  hypothesis.  The  lan- 
guage of  Peter  has  been  shown  by  competent  writers  to 
be  reconcilable  witli  that  of  a  person  in  a  place  of  safety, 
and  if  this  view  is  sound  he  could  not  liave  addressed 
his  letter  from  Rome,  after  the  persecution  of  Nero, 

We  will  briefl}^  examine  Professor  Ramsey's  objec- 
tions to  the  opinion  that  Peter  lived  and  wrote  in  the 
Parthian  Babylon. 

P.  282  :  "  While  the  tradition  that  St.  Peter  perished 
in  Rome  is  strong  and  earl}',  the  tradition  about  the 
date  of  his  death  is  not  so  clear.  .  .  Tlie  tradition 
that  he  lived  for  a  long  time  in  Rome  is  also  strong, 
and  as  Dr.  Harnack  justly  says,  '  It  is  difficult  to  sup- 
pose that  so  large  a  bod}'"  of  tradition  had  no  founda- 
tion in  fact.'"  Harnack  on  "  Peter  "  in  the  Encyc.  Brit., 
9th  ed. 

We  observe  here  that  the  earliest  tradition  that  places 
Peter  in  Rome  is  contained  in  tlie  Clementina,  and  this 
is  the  fountain  head  of  the  legend.  Harnack  himself 
styles  this  work  "A  Jewish-Cliristian  partisan  romance." 
The  Encyc.  Brit,  here  referred  to,  Art.  Popedom,  says  : 


PROFESSOR  RAMSEY'S  THEORY.  221 

"It  is  maintained  by  a  great  majority  of  Protestant 
scholars  that  there  is  no  proof  that  Peter  was  ever  in 
Rome  at  all." 

With  regard  to  Peter's  death,  Origen  and  Tertullian, 
contrary  to  oar  author's  view,  place  it  in  the  time  of 
Nero.  Authors  quoted  in  this  volume  make  it  clear 
that  we  know  nothing  concerning  Peter's  death  ;  that 
it  is  not  even  certain  that  he  died  a  martyr's  death. 

P.  283.  Tertullian  is  mentioned  as  stating  that 
Clement  was  ordained  by  St.  Peter,  and  we  read  :  "The 
latter  passage  is  the  strongest  evidence  we  possess  on 
the  point,  and  it  clearly  proves  that  the  Roman  tradi- 
tion during  the  latter  part  of  the  second  century  placed 
the  martyrdom  much  later  than  the  time  of  Nero." 

In  chapter  xx.  we  have  shown  that  this  author  was 
unworthy  of  credit,  and  his  statement  has  no  force.  As 
to  Clement's  ordination  by  Peter,  authors  like  Dick, 
Ellendorf,  Edgar,  and  Turretin  (see  pp.  44-47),  argue 
that  it  is  morally  impossible  that  Clement  in  his  Epistle 
would  have  omitted  all  reference  to  the  fact  if  it  had 
occurred. 

P.  286.  Another  objection  is  thus  stated  :  "That  this 
epistle  was  written  from  Rome  I  cannot  doubt.  It  is 
impregnated  with  Roman  thought  to  a  degi'ee  beyond 
any  other  book  in  the  Bible.  .  .  That  a  Jew  whose 
life  had  been  spent  in  Palestine  and  Chaldea  should 
write  so  Romanized  a  letter  is  even  more  improbable." 

If  Mark  was  with  Peter  at  Babylon  acting  as  his 
secretary,  as  the  ancients  all  declare,  and  his  intimate 
associate,  the  difficulty  may  be  only  apparent. 

Da  Costa,  a  brilliant  Hebrew  layman  of  Holland, 
suggests  that  Mark  was  the  "devout  soldier  "  sent  by 
Cornelius  to  Peter — one  of  the  first  Gentile  converts, 


222  WAS  PETER  EVER  AT  ROME? 

and  lience  endeared  to  him.  Mark's  Roman  name  and 
the  Roman  phrases  in  his  Gospel  are  thus  explained. 
There  is  no  evidence  that  Mark  and  Peter  were  in  Rome 
together. 

Bleek,  Intro.  Mark,  vol.  ii.,  says  :  "  When  1st  Peter 
was  written  Mark  must  have  been  with  Peter  in 
Babylon."  Meyer  writes,  Intro.  Com.  Mark  :  "At 
1  Peter,  v.  13,  we  find  Mark  again  Avith  his  spiritual 
father  Peter  at  Babylon.  His  special  relation  to  Peter 
is  specified  by  the  unanimous  testimony  of  the  ancient 
Church  as  having  been  that  of  interpreter.  ,  .  This 
view  is  plainly  confirmed  by  Jerome,  ad  Hedib.  ii." 
Archbishop  Thomson,  Speaker's  Com.  Intro.  Mark  : 
"  Somewhat  later  Mark  is  with  Peter  in  Babylon.  Some 
have  considered  Babylon  to  be  a  name  given  here  to 
Rome  in  a  mystical  sense,  surely  without  reason." 

Sawyer,  Organic  Christ.,  p.  47  :  "  Mark's  supposed 
residence  at  Rome  depends  upon  the  supposition  that 
Peter  resided  there,  and  has  no  other  foundation.  Mark 
was  Peter's  companion  at  Babylon."  Faussett,  Bib. 
Encyc.  :  "  After  Paul's  death  Mark  joined  his  old  father 
in  the  faith  at  Babylon.  .  .  The  tradition  (Clem.  Alex, 
in  Euseb.)  that  Mark  was  Peter's  companion  at  Rome 
arose  from  misunderstanding  Babylon  to  be  Rome.'''' 

It  has  been  remarked  that  the  Gospel  of  Mark  con- 
tains more  Latin  expressions  than  the  other  Gospels. 
It  would  be  reasonable,  therefore,  that  Peter's  Epistle, 
written  likewise  in  conjunction  with  Mark,  would  be 
somewhat  Romanized  in  its  tone  !     See  pp.  82-86. 

Moreover,  Silvan  us,  a  Roman  citizen,  was  at  the  same 
time  with  Mark,  a  companion  of  Peter.  Silvanus,  who 
had  visited  the  churches  addressed  by  Peter,  in  Paul's 
company,  had,  it  is  fair  to  believe,  brought  news  to  Baby- 


A  FURTHER  OBJECTION.  223 

Ion  of  their  condition.  McClintock  and  Strong  on  Peter, 
write  :  "  It  is  liigldy  probable  tliat  Silvanus,  consider- 
ing his  rank,  character,  and  special  connection  with 
those  churches  with  their  great  Apostle  and  founder, 
would  be  consulted  b}'^  Peter  throughout,  and  that  they 
would  together  read  the  Epistles  of  Paul,  especially 
those  addressed  to  the  churches  in  those  districts.    .    . 

"It  has  been  observed  above  that  there  is  good  reason 
to  suppose  that  Peter  was  in  the  habit  of  employing  an 
interpreter  ;  nor  is  there  anything  inconsistent  with  his 
position  or  character  in  the  supjjosition  that  Silvanus, 
perhaps  also  Mark,  maj^  have  assisted  him  in  giving 
expression  to  the  thoughts  suggested  to  him  by  the 
Holy  S})irit."     These  authors  place  Peter  in  Babylon. 

Jerome,  Epist.  cxx.  c.  x.  ad  Hed.,  writes:  "  Paul,  tliere- 
foi'e  employed  Titus  as  an  interpreter,  just  as  the  blessed 
Peter  employed  Mark,  whose  Gospel  was  composed  by 
the  latter  out  of  the  narrations  of  the  former.  And  the 
Epistles  also  which  are  ascribed  to  Peter  differ  from 
one  another  in  style  and  character  and  verbal  structure, 
from  which  fact  it  is  evident  that  he  had  been  con- 
strained to  make  use  of  different  interpreters." 

Valesius,  Dupin,  and  De  Marca,  eminent  Romanists, 
hold  that  Peter's  Epistles  were  written  from  Parthian 
Babylon.  The  objection  to  -Romanized  expressions 
does  not  seem  valid.     See  p.  86. 

A  FURTHER  OBJECTIOISr. 

Professor  Ramsey  holds  that  Christianit}^  had  not 
extended  so  widely  as  to  Avarrant  an  epistle  earlier 
than  A.  D.  75-80,  to  be  addressed  to  the  provinces  men- 
tioned in  1  Peter  i.  He  says  :  "  It  is  inconceivable 
that  before  a.  d.  64,  it  had  spread  away  from  that  line 


224  WAS  PETER  EVER  AT  ROME? 

(the  main  line  of  intercourse  across  the  empire)  through 
the  northern  provinces,"  and  again  :  "  The  congrega- 
tions of  Asia  Minor  were  composed  of  persons  wlio  liad 
been  Pagans  (iv.  2,  3).  It  is  contrary  to  all  reasonable 
probability  that  they  contained  any  appreciably  large 
Jewish  elements." 

We  do  not  think  the  facts  justify  these  statements. 
If  Peter's  Epistle  had  been  written  as  early  as  (34,  the 
Gospel  must  have  been  preached  for  thirt}^  years  in 
"  Pontus,  Asia,  Cappadocia,  Phrygia,  and  Pamphylia," 
which  included  the  greater  portion  of  the  region  men- 
tioned in  the  Epistle.  Hebrews,  converted  in  Jerusalem 
on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  had  retnrned  to  tlieir  homes 
to  preach  Jesus,  who  was  their  acknowledged  Messiah. 
Annually,  subsequently,  they  bad  visited  Jerusalem, 
and  had  heard  the  Gospel  preached.  Must  we  believe 
that  the  Gospel  was  without  effect  in  these  regions  for 
thirty  years  ?     Were  those  converts  silent  about  Jesus  ? 

Bacon,  in  his  exhaustive  life  of  Peter,  writes,  p.  137  : 
*'  Tlie  foreign  Jews,  tlien  at  Jerusalem,  being  witnesses 
of  these  wonderful  things,  would  not  fail,  on  their  return 
home,  to  give  the  above  affair  a  prominent  place  in 
their  account  of  their  pilgrimage,  wlien  the_y  recounted 
their  various  adventures  and  observations  to  their 
inquiring  friends.  Among  tliese  visitors  too,  were 
probably  some  who  were  tliemselves  converted  to  the 
new  faith,  and  each  one  of  these  would  be  a  sort  of 
missionary,  preaching  Christ  crucified  to  his  country- 
men in  his  distant  home,  and  telling  them  of  a  wa}"^ 
to  God  which  their  fathers  had  not  known." 

Bacon  further  says,  pp.  238-241  :  "  The  First  Epistle 
of  Peter  contains  at  the  close  a  general  salutation  from 
the  Church  in  Babylon  to  the  Christians  of  Asia  Minor 


A  FURTHER  OBJECTION.  225 

to  whom  it  is  addressed.  .  .  High  associations  of 
historical  and  religious  interest  gave  all  around  him  a 
holy  character.  .  ,  Inspired  by  such  associations  and 
remembrances,  and  by  the  spirit  of  simple  truth  and 
sincerity,  Peter  wrote  his  First  Epistle,  which  he 
directed  to  his  Jewish  brethren  in  several  sections  of 
Asia  Minor,  who  had  probably  been  brought  under  his 
ministiy  only  in  Jerusalem,  on  tlieir  visit  there  in 
attendance  on  the  great  annual  feast,  which,  in  all 
years,  as  in  that  of  Pentecost,  on  which  the  Spirit  was 
outpoured,  came  up  to  the  Holy  City  to  worship  ;  for 
there  is  no  2)roqf'  whatever  that  Peter  ever  visited  those 
countries  to  which  he  sent  this  letter.    .    . 

"  The  main  purport  seems  to  be  to  inspire  them  with 
courage  and  consolation  under  some  weight  of  general 
suffering  then  endured  by  them,  or  impending  over 
them.  Indeed,  the  whole  scope  of  the  Epistle  bears 
most  manifestly  on  this  one  particular  point — the  prep- 
aration of  its  readers,  the  Christian  communities  of  Asia 
Minor,  for  heavy  sufferings." 

The  natural  supposition  is,  therefore,  that  there  were 
congregations  of  Jewish  Christians  in  these  provinces 
at  an  early  period,  to  whom  a  comforting  and  encourag- 
ing letter  might  be  addressed.  Such  is  the  view  taken 
by  Eusebius,  Jerome,  and  Theophylact ;  b}^  Erasmus, 
Calvin,  Grotius,  Bengel,  Hug,  and  Pott.  Michaelis, 
Credner,  Neudecker,  Mynster,  Davidson,  Storr,  and 
Jowett,  hold  that  the  letter  was  to  Proselytes.  On  the 
other  hand,  many  eminent  writers  think  it  was  written 
to  Gentiles,  such  as  Augustine,  Luther,  Wettstein, 
Steiger,  Bruckner,  Mayerhoff,  Weisinger,  Neander, 
Reuss,   Schaff,    Huther,    Schneckenburger,    Baur,    and 

Hilgenfield. 
16 


226  WAS  PETER  EVER  AT  ROME? 

When  there  is  such  great  diversity  of  opinion  among 
scholars  of  equal  merit,  it  is  plain  that  there  is  no  deci- 
sive force  in  the  objection  offered  by  Professor  Ramsey, 
that  there  were  not  converted  Hebrews  in  the  provinces 
mentioned  in  First  Peter,  at  the  period  at  which  the 
Ej^istle  has  been  generally  regarded  as  written. 

The  true  meaning  of  the  term  "  Dispersion"  used  by 
the  Apostle  we  regard  as  indicated  by  Canon  Farrar  : 
"The  Disjjersion  of  which  St.  Peter  is  mainly  thinking 
is  a  spiritual  one.  He  is  writing  to  all  Christians  in  the 
countries  which  he  mentions."  Eadie,  in  liis  Com- 
mentary on  Galatians,  agrees  with  Farrar  in  this  view. 

We  have  given  in  previous  pages  testimony  from 
Wm.  Smith,  Wordsworth,  Faussett,  Milraan,  and  others, 
as  to  Hebrew  converts  being  addressed  in  the  Epistle. 

De  Marca,  an  eminent  Romanist,  writes  :  "Although 
the  ancients  supposed  Peter  to  have  here  meant  Rome, 
Scaliger  can  be  shown  to  be  right  when  he  says  that  this 
letter  was  writen  from  Bab^'^lon  itself,  to  those  dispersed 
Jews  whose  provincial  synagogue  depended  upon  the 
Patriarch  of  Babylon." 

Professor  Shedd,  Com.,  wisel}'^  suggests  :  "  That  this 
is  the  literal  Babylon  is  favored  by  the  fact  that  the 
First  Epistle  of  Peter  was  addressed  to  the  Jewish 
Church  in  Asia  Minor  (1  Peter  ii.),  whose  condition  and 
needs  must  more  naturally  come  under  the  eye  of  an 
Apostle  on  the  banks  of  the  Euphrates,  than  on  the 
banks  of  the  Tiber." 

Lange,  Com.  1  Peter,  confirms  this  view  :  "  Peter 
appears  for  some  time  to  have  had  his  sphere  of  labor 
in  the  Parthian  empire,  since  he  sends  salutations  from 
his  co-elected  in  Babylon  (l  Peter  v.  13),  which  is 
probably  not  to  be  understood  of  Rome,  but  of  Babylon 


THE  MAIN  OBJECTION.  227 

in  Chaldea.  Many  Jews  Avere  dispersed  tliere  and 
Christianity  was  earl}^  diffused  in  those  regions.  .  . 
The  First  Epistle  of  Peter  lias  no  record  of  churclies 
already  organized,  but  makes  mention  of  "elect 
strangers  of  the  Dispersion." 

THE    MAIN    OBJECTION. 

The  greatest  difficulty,  as  has  already  been  shown, 
which  Professor  Ramsey  has  with  regard  to  giving  an 
early  date  for  Peter's  Epistle,  is  that  its  tone  and 
expressions  do  not  harmonize  with  the  character  of  the 
!Neronian  persecution.  He  writes,  p.  279  :  "The  view 
tliat  First  Peter  was  written  between  64  and  67  would 
involve  a  modification  of  our  theory,  and  an  admission 
of  the  view  which  we  have  deliberately  rejected,  that 
the  development  from  the  condemnation  of  Christians 
for  definite  crimes,  to  the  absolute  proscription  of  the 
name,  took  place  before  tlie  conclusion  of  Nero's  reign." 

We  remark  here  that  our  author's  view  of  the  date  of 
Peter's  First  Epistle  differs  essentially  from  that  of  the 
great  body  of  scholars,  who  have  examined  the  subject. 

Among  authors  of  note.  Hug  and  Dupin,  Romanists  ; 
Bloomfield,  Lardner,  Faussett,  Davidson,  Wiesler, 
Guerike,  Steiger,  Dewette,  Tliiersch,  and  Michaelis, 
regard  it  as  written  between  60  and  65.  This  is  the 
common  opinion.     Alford  dates  it  63-67. 

When  an  author  undertakes  to  reverse  the  accepted 
view  of  the  world's  scholarship  generall}^,  and  to  advo- 
cate a  theory  whicli  is  vastly  opposed  to  the  probabili- 
ties of  tlie  case  (for  we  have  no  accredited  documents 
here),  a  theory  wliich  removes  the  Apostle  Peter  from 
Babylon,  where  the  Sci'ipture  locates  him,  and  places 
him  in  Rome,  where  he  had  no  call,  and  where  he  was 


228  WAS  PETER  EVER  AT  ROME* 

not  wanted  ;  we  properly  demand  reasons  which  are 
self-evident,  or  facts  which  have  not  been  previously 
known.  We  do  not  find  these  in  this  volume,  with 
respect  to  Peter.  Others  who  have  carefully  analyzed 
the  Epistle,  and  have  investigated  the  facts  of  history, 
as  far  as  known  with  respect  to  the  various  Christian 
persecutions,  find  no  ditticulty  in  reconciling  the  expres- 
sions of  the  Apostle  with  circumstances  of  Nero's  reign. 

In  reply  to  the  position  taken  by  Professor  Ramsey, 
we  prefer  to  present  the  argument  of  others  who  have 
thoroughly  examined  the  subject. 

Bacox,  an  erudite  American  layman,  before  quoted, 
Lives,  p.  243,  writes  :  "The  conclusion  is  inevitable  that 
there  was  in  the  condition  of  the  Christians  to  whom 
Peter  wrote  a  most  remarkable  crisis  just  occurring — 
one  too  of  no  limited  or  local  character  ;  and  that 
throughout  Asia  Minor,  and  the  whole  Empire,  a  trying 
time  of  universal  trouble  was  immediately  beginning 
Avith  all  who  owned  tlie  faith  of  Jesus.  The  widely 
extended  character  of  the  evil  necessarily  implies  its 
emanation  from  the  supreme  power  of  the  Empire, 
which,  bounded  by  no  jjrovincial  limits,  would  sweep 
through  the  world  in  desolating  fury  on  the  righteous 
sufferers  ;  nor  is  there  any  event  recorded  in  the  history 
of  those  ages,  which  could  thus  have  affected  the  Chris- 
tian communities,  except  the  first  Christian  persecu- 
tion, in  Avhich  Nero,  with  wanton  malice,  set  the  ex- 
ample of  cruel,  unfounded  accusation,  that  soon  spread 
throughout  his  whole  Empire,  bringing  suffering  and 
death  to  thousands  of  faithful  believers." 

Bacon  holds,  in  opposition  to  Professor  Ramsey,  that 
the  persecution  was  for  the  Name.  "  Nero  charged  the 
Christians,  as  a  sect,  with  his  own  atrocious  crime,  the 


THE  MAIN  OBJECTION.  229 

dreadful  devastation  by  fire  of  his  own  capital  ;  and  on 
this  ground  everywhere  instituted  a  cruel  persecution 
against  them.  In  connection  with  this  procedure  the 
Christians  are  first  mentioned  in  Roman  history  as  a 
new  and  peculiar  class  of  people,  called  Christians,  from 
their  founder,  Christits ;  and  in  reference  to  this  mat- 
ter, abusive  charges  are  brought  against  them.  .  .  Not 
even  a  conjecture  can  be  made,  much  less  any  historical 
proof  be  brought,  that  beyond  Palestine  any  person  had 
ever  yet  been  made  to  suffer  death  on  the  score  of 
religion,  or  of  any  stigma  attached  to  that  sect,  before 
the  time  when  Nero  involved  them  in  the  cruel  charge 
just  mentioned.    .    . 

"  It  is  evident  that  the  Epistle  was  not  written  in  the 
same  year  in  which  the  burning  occurred  ;  but  in  the 
subsequent  one,  the  twelfth  of  Nero's  reign,  and  the 
sixty-fifth  of  the  Christian  era.  By  that  time  the  con- 
dition and  prospects  of  the  Christians  throughout  the 
Empire  were  such  as  to  excite  the  deepest  solicitude,  and 
the  great  Apostle,  also,  though  himself  residing  in  the 
great  Parthian  Empire,  removed  from  all  danger  of 
injury  from  the  Roman  Emperor,  was  by  no  means  dis- 
posed to  forget  the  high  claims  the  sufferers  had  on  him 
for  counsel  and  consolation.  This  dreadful  event  was 
the  most  important  which  has  ever  yet  befallen  the 
Christians,  and  there  would  certainly  be  just  occasion 
for  surprise,  if  it  had  called  forth  no  consolatory  testi- 
mony from  the  founders  of  the  faith,  and  if  no  trace  of 
it  could  be  found  in  the  Apostolic  records.    .    . 

"  From  the  uniform  tone  in  which  the  Apostle  alludes 
to  the  danger  as  threatening  only  his  readers,  without 
the  slightest  attention  to  the  circumstance  of  his  being 
involved  in  the  difficulty,  is  drawn  another  important 


230  WAS  PETER  EVER  AT  ROME? 

confirmation  of  the  locality  of  the  Epistle.  He  uni- 
formly uses  the  second  person  when  referring  to  trials  ; 
but  if  he  himself  had  tlien  been  so  situated  as  to  share 
in  the  calamity  for  which  he  strove  to  prepare  them, 
he  would  have  been  very  apt  to  have  expressed  liis 
own  feelings  in  view  of  the  common  evil.  Paul,  in 
tliose  Epistles  which  were  written  under  circumstances 
of  personal  distress,  is  very  full  of  warm  expressions  of 
the  state  of  mind  in  which  he  met  his  trials  ;  nor  was 
there  in  Peter  any  lack  of  the  fervid  energy  that  would 
bnrst  forth  in  similarly  eloquent  sympath}^  on  the  like 
occasion.  But  from  Babylon,  beyond  the  bounds  of 
Roman  sway,  he  looked  on  their  sufferings  only  with 
that  pure  sympath}^  which  his  regard  for  his  brethren 
would  excite  ;  and  it  is  not  to  be  Avoiulered,  then,  that 
he  uses  tbe  second  person  merely  in  speaking  of  their 
distresses." 

Bacon,  moreover,  states  :  "  That  this  Neronian  per- 
secution was  as  extensive  as  it  is  here  made  to  appear, 
is  proved  by  Lardner  and  Hug.  The  former  in  par- 
ticular gives  several  very  interesting  evidences  in 
his  'Heathen  Testimonies,'  especiall}^  the  remarkable 
inscription  referring  to  this  persecution  found  in  Por- 
tugal."    (Test,  of  Anc.  Heath,  c.  iii.) 

Farrar's  "Early  Ages  of  Christianity,"  with  respect 
to  the  date  of  the  Epistle,  saj's,  "  He  is  writing  to 
those  who,  although  their  faith  was  undergoing  a  severe 
test,  like  gold  tried  in  the  fire,  were  yet  mainly  liable  to 
danger  rather  than  to  death.  They  were  exposed  to 
false  accusation  as  malefactors,  to  revilings,  threats,  and 
a  general  system  of  terrorism  and  sufferings. 

"  Now  this  is  exactly  the  state  of  things  which  must 
have  existed  in  the  provinces  after  the  Neronian  perse- 


THE  MAIN  OBJECTION.  231 

cution.  The  crisis  marked  out  the  Christians  for  a 
special  hatred  above  and  beyond  Avdiat  they  experienced 
as  being  in  the  eyes  of  the  world  a  debased  Jewish  sect. 
It  even  brought  into  view  that  name  of  '  Christians,' 
which,  though  invented  by  the  jeering  populace  of 
Antioch  as  early  as  a.  d,  44,  had  not  until  this  time 
come  into  general  vogue.    .    . 

"  Some  have  attempted  to  prove  that  the  state  of 
things  referred  to  could  only  have  existed  during  the 
persecution  of  Trajan  (a.  p.  101,  Swegler,  Kostlin, 
Baur),  which  is,  of  course,  equivalent  to  saying  that  the 
Epistle  is  spurious.  But,  considering  that  we  lind  traces 
of  trials  at  least  as  severe  as  those  to  which  St.  Peter 
alludes  some  time  before  the  Neronian  persecution  had 
broken  out,  and  in  the  Apocalyptic  letters  to  the  seven 
churches  of  Asia  after  it  had  broken  out,  the  whole 
argument  is  groundless." 

Presense,  it  will  be  seen  by  referring  to  p.  113, 
regards  the  Epistle  as  having  been  written  from 
Babylon  at  a  period  preceding  that  of  Nero. 

In  reply  to  Swegler,  who  dates  the  Epistle  in  the 
time  of  Trajan,  McClintock  and  Strong  remark  :  "  The 
tranquillity  of  tone  in  this  Epistle  would  be  remarkable 
under  any  persecution,  in  that  it  is  of  calm,  heroic 
endurance  which  trusts  in  an  unseen  arm  and  has  hopes 
undimmed  by  death  ;  that  the  persecution  of  Chris- 
tians, simply  for  the  Name  which  they  love,  was  not  an 
irrational  ferocity  peculiar  to  Trajan's  time  ;  that  in 
the  provinces  Christians  were  always  exposed  to  popular 
fury  and  irregular  magisterial  condemnation  ;  that 
there  is  no  allusion  to  judicial  trial  in  the  Epistle,  for 
the  word  anoXoyia  does  not  imply  it ;  and  that  the 
sufferings  of  Christians  in  Asia  Minor,  as  referred  to  or 


232  WAS  PETER  EVER  AT  ROME? 

predicted,  do  not  agree  witli  the  recorded  facts  in 
Pliny's  letter,  for  according  to  it  they  were  by  a 
formal  investigation  and  sentence  doomed  to  death. 
(Huther,  Einleit,  p.  28.) 

"The  persecutions  referred  to  in  this  Epistle  are 
rather  such  as  Christians  have  always  to  encounter  in 
heathen  countries  from  an  ignorant  mob  easily  stirred 
to  violence,  and  where  the  civil  power,  though  inclined 
to  toleration  in  theory,  is  yet  swayed  by  strong  prej- 
udices, and  prone  from  position  and  policy  to  favor  and 
protect  the  dominant  superstition." 

The  main  difficulty  of  Professor  Ramsey  with  regard 
to  Peter,  his  residence,  and  Epistle,  seems  to  have  been 
considered  and  eifectually  removed  by  these  competent 
and  thorough  critics. 

THE   PAPAL   COMMENDATION". 

A  greater  interest  has  been  aroused  in  Professor 
Ramsey's  volume  in  the  fact,  that  his  view  has  been 
publicly  commended  by  Leo  XIII.,  and  a  gold  medal 
bestowed  upon  the  author  for  his  scholarly  and  valuable 
work.  His  personal  exploration  of  Asia  Minor  has 
thrown  much  needed  light  upon  that  region,  where 
Christianity  made  early  and  rapid  progress.  St.  Paul's 
connection  with  the  work  is  most  ably  investigated,  and 
treated  in  an  unusually  interesting  and  vivid  manner. 
It  is  not,  however,  with  the  experience  of  Paul  that  the 
Pope  is  especialh"  concerned,  but  that  the  book  brings 
Peter  to  Rome,  and  thus  serves  to  prop  up  the  ecclesi- 
astical fabric  which  depends  for  its  support  and  its  exist- 
ence on  that  supposition,  but  for  which  there  is  no 
proof,  as  has  been  shown  in  the  present  examination. 

It  has  been  seen  that  the  writer  does  not  regard  our 


THE  PAPAL   COMMENDATION.  233 

autlior  as  having  established  his  theory  with  respect  to 
Peter,  nor  that  he  has  met  successfully  the  arguments 
of  the  competent  scliolai's  who  have  been  quoted. 

The  predominant  view  of  the  world's  scholarship  out- 
side the  Roman  communion,  has  settled  the  question, 
tliat  tliere  is  no  reasonable  or  satisfactory  evidence 
that  Peter  ever  deserted  the  East  for  the  West,  or  that 
anyone  ever  supposed  it  for  a  century  after  his  death. 

The  Roman  edifice  is  weakening  with  time,  and  with 
the  progress  of  modern  thought  and  investigation.  May 
that  Church  look  to  Paul,  its  founder,  for  light  and 
direction.  Peter  in  no  wise  can  benefit  it  by  a  sup- 
posed personal  presence  as  the  first  Pope,  or  by  the 
possession  of  his  remains.  His  toords,  if  studied  and 
heeded,  may  prevent  the  downfall  which  surely  attends 
every  work  which  is  built  on  Avood,  hay,  and  stubble, 
and  not  on  the  everlasting  foundations  of  "  the  Truth  as 
it  is  in  Jesus.'''' 


CHAPTER  XXIV. 
IRccapituIation. 

"  The  office  of  the  Head  of  the  Church  is  claimed  by 
the  Pope  as  the  successor  of  St.  Peter.  The  adversary 
of  the  Papacy  who  devotes  his  energies  to  the  under- 
mining of  the  position  is  so  far  logical  ;  and  he  mani- 
fests his  appreciation  of  the  value  of  time.  Could  the 
Papacy  be  dislodged  from  it,  there  would  be  left  him 
no  vantage  ground,  the  occupation  of  which  Avould 
enable  him  to  retrieve  his  loss.  .  .  Now  the  simplest 
waj'  of  proving  that  the  Bishoj)  of  Rome  is  not  the 
successor  of  St.  Peter  is  ...  by  establishing,  as  a 
stubborn  fact,  that  St.  Peter  himself,  the  presumed 
source  of  the  Papal  claims,  never  Avas  Bishop  of  Rome, 
in  fact,  that  he  never  was  in  the  Eternal  Cit3\" 

Thus  writes  Rev.  Reuben  Parsons,  D.  D.,  in  "  Studies 
in  Church  Historj'^,"  a.  d.  1886,  with  the  imprimatur  of 
Archbishop  Corrigan  of  New  York. 

We  need  no  better  evidence  of  the  importance  of  the 
topic  here  discussed.  We  repeat  the  words  of  Cardinal 
Perrone  presented  in  chapter  first : 

"  None  but  an  apostate  Catholic  could  make  the 
assertion  that  'St.  Peter  was  .never  at  Rome.'  The 
reason  of  this  fact  (namely,  that  no  Catholic  could  make 
this  assertion)  is  that  the  coming  of  St.  Peter  in  Rome 
and  the  seat  there  established  by  him  is  connected,  as 
the  indispensable  condition,  with  an  article  of  our  faith  ; 

234 


RECAPITULATION.  235 

that  is,  the  Primacy  of  Order  and  Jurisdiction  belong- 
ing of  Divine  right  to  the  Roman  Pontiff.  Hence  it 
follows,  that  he  cannot  be  a  Catholic,  who  does  not 
admit  the  Coming,  the  Episcopate,  the  Death  of  St. 
Peter  in  Rome."  (Cardinal  Perrone's  "  St.  Peter  in 
Rome,"  1861,  p.  32.) 

This  language  is  taken  from  Professor  Clement  M. 
Butler,  Butler's  work  "  St.  Paul  in  Rome,"  p.  207,  writ- 
ten in  Rome,  in  reply  to  statements  made  in  an  address 
in  that  city  by  Cardinal  Manning.  Dr.  Butler  writes  : 
"  To  the  Romanist  it  is  essential  that  he  should  prove 
that  St.  Peter  presided  over  the  Church  of  Rome.  On 
that  assumed  fact  is  erected  the  most  important  doc- 
trine— next  to  that  of  salvation  by  the  death  of  Christ — 
ever  proclaimed  to  man.  If  true,  it  is  a  truth  on  which 
the  salvation  of  myriads  rests.  If  false,  it  is  a  porten- 
tous falsehood,  the  evil  results  of  which  no  imagination 
can  conceive.  It  rests  on  the  fact  that  St.  Peter  was  in 
Rome.  If  he  was  not  there,  it  falls  to  the  ground  a 
convicted  and  dead  lie.  Now  it  will  be  admitted  that 
such  a  fact  should  have  proof  that  is  unimpeachable, 
abundant,  and  undoubted." 

We  shall  recapitulate  the  evidence  on  which  we  rest 
our  case,  that  there  is  no  proof  that  is  unimpeachable, 
abundant,  or  even  undoubted.  Nay,  more,  in  the 
homely  words  of  McGavin  :  "  There  is  no  sensible  man 
who  would  venture  the  value  of  a  new  hat  that  Peter 
was  Bishop  of  Rome.  .  .  That  he  was  Bishop  of 
Rome,  or  that  he  ever  saw  Rome,  yet  remains  to  be 
proved." 

In  further  proof  of  the  vital  bearing  of  this  subject 
on  the  Papal  position,  we  repeat  the  words  of  Dr.  S.  B. 
Smith  in  his  "  Teachings  of  the  Holy  Catholic  Church." 


236  WAS  PETER  EVER  AT  ROME? 

indorsed  by  Cardinals  McCloskey  and  Gibbons,  Bishops 
Gilmour,  Lynch,  and  Elder.  "The  conclusion  which 
follows  from  the  fact  of  St.  Peter  being  Bishop  of 
Rome  is  important,  and  one  which  every  Catholic  looks 
upon  as  the  foundation  of  his  faith." 

ANTECEDENT    PKOBABILITIES. 

Before  reviewing  the  argument  let  us  glance  at  the 
antecedent  jDrobabilities  in  the  case.  And  here  the 
a  priori  argument  is  immensely  in  favor  of  those  on 
the  negative  side  of  this  question,  acknowledged  to  be 
fundamental  by  the  Romanists. 

First :  From  the  position  of  Peter  as  Divinely  ap- 
pointed missionary  to  the  Hebrew  people  ;  coupled 
with  the  fact,  as  shown,  that  the  great  mass  of  the 
Jewish  nation  were  in  the  East,  in  and  around  Babylon 
in  Clialdea,  from  which  region  his  first  Epistle  is 
directed. 

Intercourse  was  constant  between  Palestine  and 
Babylon.  The  latter  was  reckoned  a  part  of  the 
former.  The  distance  to  Rome  by  sea  was  three  times 
greater,  and  still  more  so  by  land.  All  the  circumstances 
combine  to  detain  Peter  in  his  peculiar  work  in  the 
East,  for  which  he  was  fitted  ;  the  field  to  which  he 
was  called  by  the  Spirit. 

Second  :  From  the  fact  that  St.  Paul  was  in  Rome, 
aided  by  a  band  of  competent  co-workers ;  and  there- 
fore, that  Peter's  co-operation  was  not  needed.  The 
circumstances  do  not  appear  to  have  warranted  the 
expense  and  risk  of  a  long,  laborious,  and  exhaustive 
journey.  Besides,  Ave  have  reason  to  believe  that  Peter's 
appearance  in  Rome  would  not  have  been  welcomed  by 
the  great  Apostle  already  there.     Already  had  these  two 


ANTECEDENT  PROBABILITIES.  237 

foremost  of  that  band  been  in  collision.  The  dissimu- 
lation of  Peter  had  aroused  the  indignation  of  the  fiery- 
tempered  Paul  ;  who  had  previously  been  engaged  in  a 
sharp  contention  {parox7/s?n  in  the  Greek),  with  the 
devout  Barnabas  on  a  matter  of  Missions. 

Doubtless,  as  in  Corinth,  where  parties  had  arisen 
between  the  followers  of  the  two  Apostles,  such  rivalry 
would  have  been  intensified  by  the  presence  of  Peter 
in  Rome.  The  Apostle  to  the  Gentiles  would  have 
again  come  into  antagonism  with  the  Apostle  to  the 
Circumcision  ;  and  from  the  history  and  character  of 
the  two  men,  peaceful  co-operation  among  them  and 
harmony  in  the  Church  under  the  circumstances  would 
have  been  a  moral  impossibility.  If  Paul  went  into  a 
paroxysm  of  strife  with  the  mild  Barnabas,  he  would 
have  allowed  no  interference  from  the  impetuous  Peter, 
whom  "  he  rebuked  to  his  face."  Of  all  the  Apostles, 
Peter  would  have  been  the  last  to  have  intruded  ujjon 
the  special  field  of  Paul.  If  we  credit  him  with  but 
little  prudence,  he  never  would  have  traveled  to  Rome 
while  Paul  was  in  charge. 

Third  :  Tiie  principles  laid  down  by  both  men  in  their 
letters  indicate  this  opinion.  Paul  saj's  expressly  that 
he  built  on  "  no  other  man's  foundation"  (Rom.  xv.  20; 
2  Cor.  X.  16),  and  certainly  he  would  have  allowed  no 
man  as  a  rival  in  his  field  of  labor,  except  lie  was 
expressly  needed.  The  abundance  of  laborers  in  Rome 
made  Peter's  presence  wholly  unnecessary.  Peter,  more- 
over, expressly  condemns  an  intrusion  of  this  kind. 
He  discountenances  in  his  first  Epistle  (v.  20)  all — 
allotrio-episcopizlng — overseeing  the  affairs  of  others  ; 
intruding  as  a  "bishop  in  another's  field,"  as  tlie  Greek 
has  it.     The   Apostle  in   going  to  Rome  would  have 


238  WAS  PETER  EVER  AT  ROME? 

acted  contrary  to  his  own  inspired  directions  to  the 
Church, 

Fourth  :  A  very  serious  objection  arises  to  the  pres- 
ence of  Peter  in  Rome,  from  the  disputes  concerning 
the  authenticity  and  genuineness  of  the  second  Epistle 
of  Peter.  Eusebius,  who  is  the  main  reliance  for 
the  claim  of  Peter's  presence  in  Rome,  writes  of  the 
Apostle's  second  Epistle,  I,  iii,  c.  iii :  *'  I  have  under- 
stood only  one  Epistle  to  be  genuine  and  admitted  by 
the  ancient  fathers."  The  Epistle  was  not  received  into 
the  Canon  until  the  Council  of  Hippo,  a.  d.  393.  The 
Church  of  Rome  accepts  this  Epistle  as  genuine,  but 
can  that  Church  explain  the  early  doubts  concerning  it 
if  the  Apostle  had  been  Bishop  of  Rome  ?  Would 
Peter  have  kept  secret  from  the  Church  that  he  had 
written  two  Epistles  ?  We  may  regard  it  as  absolutely 
certain  that  if  written  at  Rome  by  Peter,  the  intelli- 
gence would  have  reached  the  Universal  Church,  and 
there  would  have  been  no  doubts  on  the  subject. 

Kennion  in  his  "  St.  Peter  and  Rome,"  p.  7,  well 
writes  :  "  If  the  second  as  well  as  the  first  Epistle  was 
written  on  the  banks  of  the  Euphrates  or  Tigris,  the 
martyrdom  which  he  then  looked  forward  to  as  soon  to 
take  place  might  most  readily  account  for  it  ;  for  I  do 
not  think  we  have  any  very  clear  account  of  the  Par- 
thian Church  in  those  days.  If  when  Peter  was  put 
to  death,  most  of  his  fellow-Christians  in  the  same  place, 
or  on  the  same  journey,  suffered  with  him  ;  if  in  the 
Parthian  war,  which  was  then  raging  or  soon  afterward 
broke  out,  the  remains  of  that  Churcli  were  swept  away, 
and  few  copies  of  this  Epistle  left,  the  doubts  which 
have  existed  are  fully  explained. 

"And,  if  so,  another  difficulty  may  perhaps  be  got 


ANTECEDENT  PROBABILITIES.  239 

rid  of  ;  for  St.  Jude's  Epistle,  Avith  wliicli  that  of  Peter 
is  obviously  connected,  is  also  one  of  the  doubtful  ones. 
And  though  we  know  little  of  St.  Jude's  later  histor^^, 
various  traditions  speak  of  him  as  in  Edessa,  Assyria, 
and  Persia  ;  that  is,  in  the  near  neighborhood  of  St. 
Peter  ;  and  nothing  is  more  likely  tlian  that  the  latter 
should  embody  those  burning  words  of  his  fellow 
Apostle,  in  the  letter  Avhich  he  was  then  about  to  send 
to  the  Churches  of  Asia  Minor." 

Dr.  LiTTLEDALE,  iu  liis  "Petrine  Claims,"  p.  73, 
writes  :  "  The  fact  that  the  Second  Epistle  of  Peter  is 
amongst  the  disj^uted  books  of  the  New  Testament,  and 
that  St.  Jerome,  whose  warm  attachment  to  the  Church 
of  Rome  makes  certain  the  opinion  of  that  Church 
would  weigh  much  with  him,  is  one  of  those  who 
doubt  its  genuineness  (de  Vir.  Illust.  i.),  is  strong  pre- 
sumptive evidence  against  St.  Peter  having  been  at 
Rome  when  it  was  written.  For  if  he  had  been  there,  the 
local  Church  must  needs  have  been  in  a  position  to  say 
Avhether  he  had  or  had  not  addressed  such  an  epistle  to 
tlie  whole  Catholic  Church  ;  and  his  single  attestation 
would  have  ended  the  controversy.  Clearl}'  nothing 
more  was  known  at  Rome  than  elsewhere  on  the 
point." 

Dr.  Wells  in  Sacred  Geography,  p.  261,  on  this 
matter  of  St.  Jude,  presents  interesting  thoughts  which 
will  be  seen  on  p.  104. 

The  removal  of  the  doubts  which  have  affected  so 
many  minds  with  respect  to  this  portion  of  the  Sacred 
Canon,  is  one  of  the  good  effects  of  making  clear  the 
truth,  that  the  a  2^Twri  argument,  and  the  verdict  of 
history  are  positively  and,  we  may  say,  decisively, 
against  Peter's  journey  to  the  West. 


240  WAS  PETER  EVER  AT  ROME? 

Fifth  :  LiGHTFOOT,  as  we  have  seen,  p.  89,  suggests  : 
"The  consideration  that  Peter  ended  his  days  at  Baby- 
lon, is  very  useful,  if  my  judgment  fail  not,  at  tlie  set- 
ting out  of  ecclesiastical  story."  Among  the  points 
cleared  up  by  establishing  Peter  in  his  true  locality  at 
Babylon  is  the  field  of  labor  of  his  fellow  Apostle  among 
the  Circumcision,  John  the  Evangelist.  In  chapter 
xiv.,  we  have  shown  the  strong  probability  that  John 
labored  in  Parthia  with  Peter  until  his  later  years,  when 
the  Church's  needs    required  his  presence  in  Ephesus. 

Sixth  :  It  seems  highly  reasonable  that,  as  on  account 
of  the  ancient  tendency  to  idolatry,  Jehovah  concealed 
the  body  of  Moses  from  the  Israelites  ;  for  the  same 
reason  Providence  has  kept  from  the  certain  knowledge 
of  man,  the  later  residence  and  the  burial  place  of  the 
most  highly  honored,  and  foremost  of  the  Apostles  of 
our  Lord, 

The  fearful  idolatry  which  has  so  sadly  characterized 
the  Church  of  Rome  with  respect  to  the  liuman  Mother 
of  our  Lord,  and  to  the  remains  of  martyred  saints, 
would  have  been  greatly  intensified  if  the  bones  of 
Peter  could  have  been  discovered  and  identified.  They 
have  never  been  found.  No  man  knoweth  of  his  sepul- 
cher  unto  this  day.  So  has  the  Lord  ordered  it.  Peter 
was  buried  in  Babylon,  and  from  that  spot  shall  he  rise 
on  the  Resurrection  morn.  lie  will  be  surrounded  by 
his  fellow  martyrs,  and  not  by  that  long,  dark  catalogue 
of  men  who  have  been  falsely  claimed  to  be  his  infalli- 
ble successors. 

The  justice  of  the  charge  of  idolatry  maybe  gathered 
from  Father  Hardouin's  words  on  p.  6,  where  he  aflirms 
that  Rome  had  Peter's  head,  and  "  that  it  ought  to  be 
duly  worshiped." 


ANTECEDENT  PROBABILITIES.  241 

Bishop  Wordsworth,  Com.  on  1  Peter,  uses  impress- 
ive language  on  this  topic.     He  says  : 

"  The  obscurity  in  whicli  the  history  of  St.  Peter  is 
involved  after  liis  delivery  from  his  imprisonment,  a.  d. 
44  (Acts  xii.  17),  is  very  remarkable.  It  seems  provi- 
dential. 

*' It  nay  be  ascribable  to  the  same  causes  as  the 
silence  of  Holy  Scripture  with  reference  to  the  Blessed 
Virgin  Mary.  It  is  like  a  prophetic  protest  against  the 
errors  which  grew  up  afterward  within  the  Church,  and 
fastened  themselves  with  a  semblance  of  reverence  on 
his  venerable  name  ;  like  ivy  which  injures  the  tree  it 
dresses  up  with  its  foliage.  There  is,  therefore,  it  is 
probable,  an  eloquent  significance  in  this  silence." 

Dr.  William  Hague,  "Christianity  and  Statesman- 
ship," p.  134,  eloquently  writes  : 

"  The  learned  and  diligent  Michaelis  has  shown  good 
reason  to  believe  that  Peter  wrote  his  Epistles  from  the 
Chaldean  Babylon,  and  that  there,  amid  the  scenes 
around  wliicli  clustered  hallowed  memories  of  Ezekiel 
and  Daniel,  he  spent  the  last  days  of  his  Apostleship. 
The  renowned  temple  in  Rome  which  bears  his  name 
is  said  by  some  to  be  built  on  his  tomb. 

"  There  is  nc  proof,  however,  that  liis  mortal  remains 
were  ever  laid  in  a  Roman  sepulcher,  but  we  are  rather 
led  to  the  conclusion  that  He  who  caused  the  body  of 
Moses  to  be  hidden  from  the  Israelites  permitted  also 
the  body  of  the  Apostle  to  rest  in  some  quiet  seclusion, 
that  none  migl  t  be  tempted  to  offer  his  saintly  relics 
the  incense  of  a\  idolatrous  worship. 

"  From  his  home  in  the  far  East  he  sent  his  last 
Epistle  to  the  great  Christian  family,  declaring  to  them 
that  his  Lord  hai"*  shown  him  that  '  he  must  shortly  put 


242  WAS  PETER  EVER  AT  ROME? 

off  this  tabernacle.'  That  tabernacle  has  long  since 
mingled  with  its  kindred  dust,  but  his  works  survive  it. 
His  name  is  still  fragrant.  His  recorded  words  are  liv- 
ing oracles,  and  as  an  inspired  Apostle,  having  authority, 
he  still  sits  on  his  throne  judging  the  tribes  of  Israel." 

It  is  an  act  of  reverence  thus  to  ascribe  to  Divine 
Providence  the  hiding  of  the  remains  of  the  chief 
Apostle,  and  we  justly  claim  that  the  Heavenly  blessing 
has  descended  upon  those  who  have  magnified  and  fol- 
lowed the  inspired  words  of  Peter,  rather  than  upon 
those  who  have  boasted  of  his  personal  presence,  and 
have  unduly  honored  his  pretended  remains. 

No  intelligent  Pope  would  have  selected  one  like 
Peter  for  a  mission  to  Rome,  while  Paul  was  its  guide 
and  leader.  It  is  a  false  interpretation  of  our  Lord's 
words  to  him,  with  a  desire  to  secure  his  name  for 
Rome's  aggrandizement  and  supreme  power,  which  can 
account  for  the  historical  fiction  Ave  have  examined. 
That  Rome  should  prefer  to  Paul's  doctrines  of  grace 
and  a  pure  Gospel,  the  Jewish  exclusiveness  and  devo- 
tion to  tradition  characteristic  of  Peter  before  his  con- 
version, is  not  surprising  when  we  contemj^late  her 
history,  her  influence,  and  her  works  !  The  doctrines 
of  Rome  are  as  wide  as  the  poles  from  the  plain  teaching 
of  Peter's  Epistles. 

And  if  Rome  is  ever  to  return  to  the  doctrine  of 
Holy  Scripture,  to  the  Inspired  Gospel,  it  must  be  by 
accepting  the  Truth  as  taught  so  clearly  and  copiously 
by  her  true  Founder,  the  Apostle  Paul.  In  the  letters 
of  Peter  the  same  is  contained,  and  the  doctrine  of  Paul 
indorsed.  From  both  Rome  has  departed,  and  has 
succeeded  to  the  views  and  temper  of  both  Apostles, 
as  they  were  in  their  days   of   Jewish   exclusiveness, 


FORM  AND  ORDER  OF  EVIDENCE.  243 

prejudice,  and  religious  bigotry  and  uncharitableness, 
before  enlightened  by  the  Holy  Spirit. 

May  the  spirit  of  the  converted  Paul  and  Peter 
descend  upon  the  teachers  and  rulers  of  that  Church 
and  the  vast  millions  under  their  rule  and  instruction  ; 
that  souls  may  be  enlightened  and  saved  ;  the  Divine 
Head  of  the  Church  be  glorified  ;  stumbling  blocks  in 
the  way  of  the  world's  advance  in  light,  knowledge, 
purity,  and  happiness  be  effectually  removed  ! 

FOKM   AND    ORDER    OF   EVIDENCE. 

It  remains  now  briefly  to  recapitulate  the  form  and 
order  of  Evidence  previously  produced. 

It  has  been  shown  that  in  the  first  century,  in  the 
writings  of  the  only  two  authors  whose  works  have 
reached  us,  Clement  and  Ignatius,  nothing  whatever  is 
said  concerning  Peter's  presence  in  Rome.  Evidence  is 
presented  that  in  the  five  authentic  documents  of  the 
century  following  Peter's  death,  which  exist— the 
works  of  Polycarp,  Barnabas,  Hermas,  Justin,  and  the 
Didache— there  is  no  statement  to  be  found  that  Peter 
visited  Rome,  or  died  there. 

An  examination  of  the  Scriptures  makes  it  clear  that 
they  contain  no  allusion  whatever  to  the  presence  of 
Peter  in  Rome.  Such  omission  presents  a  strong  and 
apparently  conclusive  negative  argument  against  his 
presence  there. 

It,  moreover,  establishes  the  fact  that  the  knowledge 
of  the  locality  where  Peter  labored  and  died  is  of  no 
essential  importance  to  the  Church,  and  that  no  doctrine 
dependent  on  the  Apostle's  residence  affects  the  welfare 
of  Christians. 
If  it  were  otherwise,  the  Word  of  God  would  have 


244  WAS  PETER  EVER  AT  ROME? 

given  liglit  on  the  subject.  The  Apostle  liimself  does 
not  seeui  to  be  aware  that  the  localitj'^  of  liis  life  or 
death  was  of  any  importance  to  the  Church  of  Christ. 

The  question  with  respect  to  Babylon  mentioned  by 
the  Aj^ostle  was  carefully  examined  ;  and  it  was  made 
evident  that  the  overwhelming  weight  of  testimony  was 
in  favor  of  the  opinion  that  Babylon  in  Chaldea  was 
meant.  The  names  of  330  leading  Continental,  English, 
and  American  writers,  besides  Roman  authors,  who 
hold  that  Babylon  was  the  Chaldean  city,  and  not 
Rome,  have  been  given. 

The  fictions,  such  as  the  Clementina,  from  whence 
the  story  of  Peter's  visit  to  Rome  was  derived,  were 
shown  to  be  utterly  unworthy  of  credit  by  the  admis- 
sion of  eminent  Romanists  and  others.  The  statements 
of  Caius  and  of  Dionysius  quoted  by  Eusebius  ;  then 
of  Irenseus,  Tertullian,  and  Hippolytus  ;  of  Origen, 
Clemens,  and  Cyprian  ;  and  lastly  of  Eusebius,  were 
critically  examined,  and,  it  is  claimed,  were  clearly  seen 
to  present  no  evidence  on  the  subject  deserving  of 
respect  or  confidence.  Writers  later  than  Eusebius  are 
of  no  weight  as  evidence. 

Stress  has  been  laid  in  the  examination  on  the  opinion 
of  legal  minds,  of  jurists,  Protestant  and  Roman  ;  who, 
investigating  tlie  subject  critically,  have  given  their 
unanimous  verdict  :  the  case  not  proven  with  respect  to 
Peter's  visit  to  Rome  ;  no  reliable  evidence  whatever 
on  the  part  of  the  affirmative. 

Marsillius  and  Dumoulin,  Roman  Catholic  lawyers  ; 
Simon,  Greenwood,  and  Kennard,  English  barristers  ; 
Bouzique,  an  eminent  French  jurist  ;  after  a  judicial 
investigation  concur  in  this  verdict.  Ellendorf,  a 
Roman  Catholic   lay   professor   in   Berlin ;    Bacon,  an 


FORM  AND   ORDER  OF  EVIDENCE.  245 

• 

accomplished  American  scholar  ;  McGavin  and  Kitto, 
Scotch  savants  of  extensive  research  ;  all  laymen  ;  con- 
sequently more  free  from  theological  bias  and  ecclesias- 
tical prejudice  than  clergymen,  and  better  j^repared  to 
sift  testimon}^  impartially,  ai"e  compelled  to  affirm  that, 
according  to  all  the  evidence  obtainable,  the  Apostle 
Peter  never  entered  the  city  of  Rome. 

If  the  conclusions  here  presented  are  just,  the  claims 
of  the  Church  of  Rome  do  not  rest  on  solid  founda- 
tions ;  certainly  not  sufficient  to  lead  us  to  trust  in  a 
religion  which  depends  for  its  authority  over  mankind 
on  the  pi'esumption  that  Peter  was  in  Rome,  was  Bishop 
of  Rome,  and  has  handed  down  to  the  occupants  of 
that  See  supreme  power  over  all  bishojjs,  ministers,  and 
members  of  the  Church  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ. 
There  is  here  presented  complete  vindication  for  the 
action  of  all  who  have  protested  against  and  seceded 
from  the  Papal  power  ;  and  in  view  of  its  almost 
universally  deleterious  and  corrupting  influence  where  it 
is  not  checked  and  modified  by  a  predominating  Prot- 
estantism (witness  Italy,  Spain,  Mexico,  and  South 
America),  is  it  not  the  duty  of  all  intelligent  and  devout 
Christian  j^eople  to  resist  the  Papal  Church,  to  endeavor 
to  enlighten  its  members,  and  thus  bring  them  into  the 
full  liberty  and  light  of  the  children  of  God  ? 

If  this  main  pillar  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  is 
thus  seen  to  rest  on  quicksand,  why  may  not  other  sup- 
ports of  that  Institution  be  equally  insecure  ? 

They  may  be  equally  destitute  of  authority  from  the 
Word  of  God,  or  authenticated  histor}^  Transubstan- 
tiation,  Purgator}^  the  Adoration  and  Immaculate  Con- 
ception of  the  Virgin  Marj^,  Papal  Infallibility,  Sacra- 
mental    Grace,    a    Sacerdotal    Caste     endowed    with 


246  WAS  PETER  EVER  AT  ROME? 

• 

absolving  authority — all  these  may  be  sustained  neither 
by  Scripture,  history,  nor  sound  reason.  Would  it  not 
be  well  for  Roman  Catholics  to  thoroughly  investigate 
these  matters,  and  not  run  the  risk  of  entering  eternity 
ignorant  of  revealed  Truth,  and  with  minds  full  of 
fables  and  delusions — the  life-long  victims  of  supersti- 
tion. 

When  this  whole  system  of  Papal  doctrine  is  rejected 
by  the  great  mass  of  intelligent  and  educated  Christians, 
as  in  England,  Germany,  and  the  United  States,  where 
the  mind  and  conscience  are  free,  and  where  education  is 
universal  ;  rejected  as  opposed  to  Divine  Revelation, 
and  the  belief  of  the  primitive  Apostolic  Church  ;  is 
there  not  a  seriousresponsibility  laid  upon  the  cultivated 
members  of  this  Communion  ;  and  do  not  the  words  of 
our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  to  the  peoi)le,  convey  a  serious 
admonition  :  "Why  do  ye  not  of  yourselves  judge  that 
wdiich  is  right  ?  "  Luke's  Gospel,  xii.  5V  ;  and  again  : 
*'In  vain  do  ye  worship  me,  teaching  for  doctrines  the 
commandments  of  men,"  Matthew  xv.  9. 


THE   END. 


ADDENDA. 


"St.  Peter,  dating  his  epistle  from  Babylon,  was  not  then 
at  Rome." — John  Fox,  "  Book  of  Martyrs,"  p.  16. 

M.  Hobart  Seymour,  in  his  edition  of  Fox's  work,  p.  16, 
Worthington  Company,  New  York,  writes  :  "It  was  during 
the  life  of  our  author,  John  Fox,  that  the  Rhemish  Testament 
was  published,  and  though  he  little  thought  that  the  Papists 
would  identify  Babylon  with  Rome,  yet  his  'Acts  and 
Monuments '  were  scarcely  before  the  world  when  the  Rhem- 
ish annotators — finding  no  evidence  in  the  Scriptures  to  prove 
that  Peter  was  ever  at  Rome — did  actually  fasten  upon  the 
dating  of  his  first  epistle  from  Babylon  and  explain  it  as  a 
mystic  name  for  Rome." 

Cartwright,  who  was  a  contemporary  of  Fox,  and  wrote 
his  "  Compilation  of  the  Rhemish,"  etc.,  during  tlie  lifetime  of 
our  martyrologist,  thus  writes  :  ' '  That  Peter  sat  not  in  Rome, 
is  confirmed  in  that  Peter  writes  from  Babylon  in  Chaldea,  and 
not  in  Italy.  This  is  an  evident  reason,  for  that  this  Babylon  was 
a  place  of  principal  abode  of  the  Jews,  towards  whom  Peter's 
charge  principally  lay.  Gal.  ii,  7.  Whereas  at  this  time  the 
Jews  were  not  suffered  to  make  their  abode  in  Rome.  Acts 
xviii,  3.  Whereunto  may  be  added  that,  writing  to  the  dis- 
persed Jews,  and  making  reheai"sal  of  divers  countries  wherein 
they  were,  he  leaveth  out  Chaldea,  which,  considering  the 
great  numbers  that  remained  there  still  after  the  return  into 
Judea  out  of  captivity,  he  would  not  have  done,  unless  Chal- 
dea were  the  place  from  whence  he  wrote  his  Epistles." 

Tiie  force  of  this  argument  is  clear.  Three  fourths  of  the 
Jewish  nation  at  that  time  were  in  the  Chaldean  or  Mesopota- 
mian  country.  As  these  Hebrews  are  not  addressed  by  the 
one  divinely  appointed  as  their  evangelist,  the  argument  seems 
iiTesistible  that  the  apostle  must  have  heen  in  their  midst, 
and  hence  could  not  have  been  writing  from  Rome  or  any 
other  place  besides  Babylon,  from  which  he  plainly  dates  his 
letters.  1  Pet.  v,  13. 


PRINCIPAL  AUTHORITIES  QUOTED. 


Simon's  "Mission  and  Martyrdom  of  St.  Peter."     This  volume  con- 
tains all  patristic  authorities  in  the  original. 
Greenwood's  "  Cathedra  Petri,"  Vols.  I,  II. 
Bacon's  "Lives  of  the  Apostles." 
Ellendorf,  "Bib.  Sacra."     July,  1858  ;  January,  1850. 
Lipius,  "  Pres.  Quar.  Rev.,"  November,  1848,  Trans,  by  S.  M.  Jackson. 
North  Brit.  Rev.,  November,  1848.     Rev.  of  Scheler.' 
New  Brunswick  Rev.,  May  and  August,  1854. 
Christ.  Observer,  London,  Nov.  1853.     Rev.  of  Simon. 
Church  Rev.,  July,  1848.     Dr.  S.  M.  Jarvis. 
Meth.  Quar.  Rev.,  South.     January,  1856,  Dr.  T.  V.  Moore. 
New  Englander,  January,  1871,  Dr.  E.  Harwood. 
Shepherd's  "History  of  "the  Cliurch  of  Rome." 
Trevor's  "  Rome  from  the  Fall  of  the  Western  Empire." 
Robin's  "  Claims  of  the  Church  of  Rome." 
Seabury's  Answer  to  Dr.  Harwood.     New  York,  18V1. 
Edgar's  "  Variations  of  Popery." 
Bower's  "  Lives  of  the  Popes." 
Brown's  "  Peter  the  Apostle  never  in  Rome." 
Bouzique's  "  History  of  Christianity,"  3  vols. 
Report  of  Discussion  in  Rome.     February,  18'72. 
Dr.  Littledale's  "  Petriue  Claims." 
Sawyer's  "  Organic  Ciiristianity." 
Wiesler,  Kitto's  Journal  of  Sacred  Literature. 
Dr.  Hatch,  Encyclopedia  Brit.,  article,  "  Peter." 
Edersheim's  "Life  and  Times  of  Jesus  the  Messiah." 
Michaelis,  in  Adam  Clarke's  Com.  on  1  Peter. 
Farrar's  "  Early  Days  of  Christianitv." 
Dr.  E.  W.  Samson,  Bap.  Quar.  Rev.",  July,  1873. 
Turretini  Opera,  Vol.  Ill,  (p.  144-50).     Ed.  New  York. 
Lightfoot's  Sermon,  1  Peter,  v.  13.     Vol.  VII,  p.  1. 
Canon  F.  C.  Cook,  "  Speaker's  Commentary." 
AVordsworth  "  on  the  Canon  ;"    "  Com.  on  Revelation." 
Ramsay's  "Church  in  the  Roman  Empire." 
Lanciani's  "  Rome,  Pagan  and  Christian." 
McDonald's  Com.  on  St.  John. 
S.  R.  Green's  "  Life  of  Peter." 
Kennion's,  "  St.  Peter  and  Rome." 
McGaviu's  "Protestant." 
Elliot  on  Romanism. 
Butler's  "  St.  Paul  in  Rome." 


INDEX. 


Alexander,  J.  Addison,  63,  151 
Alford,  Dean,  90,  170,  227 
Artaud,  25 
Ari-owsmith,  11 
Aubeilin,  78 

Bacon,  15,  39,  48,  120,  124,  127, 
129,  186,  221,  224,  228,  230 

Bagby's  Travels,  12 

Barnes,  Albert,  94 

Barnabas,  53 

Barrow,  Dr..  80 

Baronius,  28,  59,  76,  95,  176,  177 

Barras,  3 

Baratier,  26 

Bates,  163 

Bannigarten,  63 

Belhirmine,  Cardinal,  4,  25,  59, 
61,  77,  117,  152 

Benson,  Dr.,  41 

Bethune,  13 

Bishop,  Alex.,  11 

Bleek,  84,  222 

Blaikie,  13 

Bloomfiekl,  75,  100 

Bower,  10,  19 

Bouzique,  38,  66,  77,  209 

Bradford,  8 

Browne,  J.  H.,  9 

Brown,  79,  86,  187 

Brvennios,  47,  56 

Bull,  Bishop.  9,  74 

Bunsen,  26,  32,  209 

Butler,  Prof.  C.  M.,  16,  235 

Calmet,  69 

Calvin,  62,  100 

Canon  Law,  Church  of  Rome,  2 

Carou,  Father,  6 

Caius,  174,  175,  179,  182 

Cave,  Dr.,  190 

Catechismus  Romanus,  3 

Ceillier,  25 


Chambers.  187 

Chevalier,'  32,  34 

Chillingworth,  172 

Clarke,  Dr.  Adam,  10,  87,  109,  195 

Clemens,  Alexandrinus,  133,  199 

Clement,  9,  32,  35,  39,  40,  43-49 

Clementina,  152 

Coleman,  32 

Cotelerius,  150 

Conybeare,  208 

Coplestou,  Bishop,  10 

Cook,  F.  C,  93 

Coxe,  19 

Cranmer.  8 

Creed  of  Pope  Pius  IV.,  2 

Cumming,  J.,  99 

Cunningham,  168 

Cuyler,  Dr.  T.  L.,  73 

Cyprian,  199,  200 

Da  Costa,  86,  221 

Daille,  166,  185, 195 

Daubigne,  184 

Davidson,  12,  109,  131,  185 

De  Cormenin,  6,  70 

De  Marca,  226 

Depradt,  21 

Deutsch,  Dr.  Emanuel,  115 

Dick's  Theology,  10,  44 

Dionysius,  158,  159 

Doddridge,  89 

Dollinger,  132,  201 

Dowling,  15 

Duff,  60 

Dupin,  69,  152,  164 

Du  Moulin,  5 

Ecliard,  Lawrence,  103 
Edersheini,  116 
Edgar,  11,  46,  60,  200,  207,  210 
EUendorf,  6,  44,  64,  65,  68,  143, 

151,  157,  176,  180 
Elliot,  Charles,  13,  74 


247 


248 


INDEX, 


Ellicott,  Bishop,  84 

Emertou,  14 

Encyc.  Britan.  13 

Eusebius,    76,    77,    158,    159,    167, 

178,  183,  206,  207,  212,  213,  214, 

217,  238 
Erasmus,  70,  165 

Faber,  Geo.  S.,  6 
raiibairn,  103 
Family  Ex.  Cat.,  3 
Fariar,  67,  81,  141,  143.  167,  187, 
191.  230  ... 

Faussett,  40,  82 
Feuardeiit,  24 
Fisher,  Dr.  Geo.,  154 
Fonlkes,  184 
Fulke,  97,  152 
Froschammer,  44 

Gaussen,  190 

Gavazzi,  117,  119,  120,  207 

Giesler,  40,  165 

Giiford.  215 

Gloag,  156,  186 

Guerike,  113 

Gray,  J.  C,  180 

Green,  S.  K.,  130,  188,  197 

Greenwood,   10,  28,  36,  125,  171, 

187,  202,  210 
Grotius,  126 

Hague,  241 

Hall,  Robert,  10,  210 

Hardouin,  6,  240 

Harman,  84 

Harnack,  151,  202 

Hatch,  191 

Herzog,  208 

Hernias,  54,  55 

Hertzog,  72,  73 

Hilary,  198 

Hill,  10 

Hippolvtus,  190,  191,  193 

Hodge,"  C,  13,  97,  158 

Howsou,  Dean,  90,  208 

Hooper,  8 

Hopkins,  J.  H.,  91 

Home,  T.  H.,  87,  171 

Hovey,  99 

Howe,  John,  9 

Hug,  70 

Hurst,  14 

Hussey,  155 

Huther,  232 


Ignatius,   25,  30,  31,  44,  51,  141, 

243 
Irenaeus,  160,  163,  167,  170,  174 

Jacobus,  13 

Jarvis,  Dr.,  78 

Jerome,  60,  76,  78,  84, 134,  198,  208, 

223 
Jewel,  18 
Jortiu,  169 

Josephus,  71,  79,  101,  102,  115,  123 
Justin,  55,  65,  214,  215 

Kennard,  R.  W.,  12,  212 

Kennion,  45,  238 

Kenrick,  34 

Kuinoel,  120 

Kirwan,  75 

Kitto,  10,  79,  109,  115,  187 

Kurtz,  8 

Lampe,  139 

Lange,  226 

Lansing,  14 

Lanci,  181 

Lanciani,  200,  26l,  202,  203,  204 

Lardner,   Dr.,   33,  34,   35,   36,  41, 

109,  128,  141 
Lelaud,  Father,  6 
Le  Movne,  52 

Lightfoot,  Bishop,  32,  54,  132 
Lightfoot,  Dr.  John,  8,   87-89,  122 
LiUie,  99 

Lipsius,  57,  58,  156 
Littledale.  Dr.,  12,  91,  239 
Livius,  208 
London  Times,  175 

Marsilius,  6,  66 

Merivale,  102 

Massey,  12 

McCorrv,  26,  33,  38,  175 

McClintock.  106,  163,  231 

McDonald,  20,  123,  124 

McGavin,  11,  210,  235 

McGiffert,  76 

McKnight,  70 

Mever,  60,  72,  84,  187 

Michffhs,  79,  107,  108,  109,  123 

Milman,  101,  152 

Milton,  135 

Moore,  15 

Mosheim,  151,  164 

Murdock,  39.  213,  216 

Murray,  Dr.  N.,  14,  72,  75 


INDEX. 


249 


Narrlini,  180 

Neaiider,  8,  72,  112,  178,  188,  189, 

190,  203 
Newton,  95 
New  Englander,  15 
New  Brunswick  Review,  48 
Nicephorus,  83 
Niebulir,  91 
North  British  Bevietc,  13,  43,  183, 

195 
Nourse,  16,  198 

Origen,  195,  197,  198,  221 
Owen,  J..  Vicar,  27,  110,  179,  185 
Owen,  John,  Dr.,  8,  158 

Papias,  74,  77,  78 
Parsons,  Rev.  R.,  1,  234 
Pearson,  26 
Peck,  Dr.  Geo.,  18 
Perrone,  4,  235 
Plattner,  178 
Polycarp,  52 
Poole,  98 
Powell,  11 
Prelim.  Diss.,  70 
Presens(^,  113,  231 
Princeton  Review,  15 

Quarterly  Review,  167,  208 

Ramsay,  218,  219,  220,  223,  227 

Ranke,  7 

Rhenish  New  Testament,  97 

Rennel,  104 

Reuss,  114 

Rice,  N.  L.,  16 

Riddle,  32,  151,  166 

Robertson,  102 

Robinson,  Edw.,  105 

Rulfinus,  198 

Salmon,  Dr.,  154 

Salmond,  104 

Salmasius,  7 

Samson,  Dr.,  92,  141,  142,  190 

Sawyer,  16,  27,  82,    153,  156,  178, 

215,  222 
Scaliger,  7 


Scheler,  43,  156 

Schottgen,  78 

Schnrer,  114 

Seeley,  11 

Shedd,  106,  226 

Shepherd,  157,  177 

Shimeall,  14,  163 

Simon.  34,  37,  77,  151,  197,  211 

Smith,  Rev.  S.  B.,  1,  174 

Smith,  Dr.  Wm.,  125 

Smyth,  13 

Snodgrass,  16 

So^d}le7■n  Revieto,  8 

Spanheim,  7 

Stanley,  Dean,  105,  160 

Steiger,  85,  112 

Stowe,  106 

Strong,  14,  106,  163,  231 

Taylor,  W.  C,  125 
Taylor,  W.  M.,  14,  98 
TertuUian,  185,  186,  188,  189,  221 
Thomson,  Archbishop,  85 
Thomson,  W.  M.,  140 
Thompson,  R.  E.,  14 
Tillemont,  152,  172 
Timpson,  11 
Towusend,  138,  139 
Trevor,  Canon,  72 
Turrentin,   6,    7,  46,    59,    61,   75, 
110,  168 

Uhlorn,  47 

Valesius,  77,  86,  223 
Van  Oosterzee,  7 
Vatican  Council,  2 
Vedder,  H.  C,  14 

Wake,  Archbishop,  54 

Wells,  104,  239 

Wesley,  John,  91 

Whedon,  91 

Whittaker,  74 

Willet,  8,  179 

Wiseman,  181 

Wordsworth,  Bishop,  96,  104,  132, 

138,  241 
Wright,  W.  A.,  102 
Wylie,  J.  A.,  11,  29,  62 


Date  Due 

'" 

1 

_Mr.^4_J 

; 

i  ,^3i  1  a  T 

) 

^i  1  2 

46 

K^^ 

L 

'      ISOdtMkfigil 

I*' 

"^  f^^fOn 

SJJ'J 

f) 

- 

BW1057.G16 
^-theapost,ePete.everatRo.e- 


li£l£00078  6725 


